All posts by anuruddha

How to Reinvent the School Lunch and Get Kids to Eat Better

England replicates Finland’s school lunch system

Finland’s free school lunch system is gaining attention around the world.

Finland’s free school lunch system is gaining attention around the world.
Lehtikuva / Markku Ulander

Next autumn, England will begin providing free school lunches to children aged between four and seven. The inspiration behind the decision came from Finland’s nearly 70-year-old school food system. Also Scotland will provide free school lunches from the beginning of next year.

An adviser to the project has been the internationally renowned Finnish public health expert Pekka Puska. In addition the Finnish Embassy in London and the Foundation for the Promotion of Finnish Food Culture ELO have set up a school food network designed to encourage British people to develop their country’s school meals. According to the ELO foundation, the transformation of the English school lunch has been long awaited.

The effects of free school lunches were studied in London between 2009 and 2011. A healthy, regular school meal improved learning results as well as children’s behaviour. These research results encouraged the creation of a more thought-out school food plan that is based on the Finnish system.

— The phones have hardly stopped ringing here in Finland. The free school lunches we offer all our school children are a unique phenomenon in the world. England’s school food plan has its own chapter dealing with Finnish school meals and health improvement achievements, says Pekka Puska.

Finnish school meals have also raised interest in other countries.

— Our foreign visitors have always loved what they have seen and experienced here, say both Päivi Palojoki, Professor of Home Economics Pedagogy at the University of Helsinki, and Marjaana Manninen, Counsellor of Education in charge of developing school food at the Finnish National Board of Education.

www.elo-saatio.fi

www.finemb.org.uk

www.wordwareinc.com

 

MDE School Nutrition Programs Handout on Grains

National School Lunch Program

The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946.

National School Lunch Program (NSLP)

NSLP Legislation

NSLP Regulations

NSLP Policies

Guidance and Resources

Offer Versus Serve (OVS) – Updated 2015-2016 Guidance Manual

Tools for SchoolsTools for Schools offers topic-specific policy and resource materials to assist schools in meeting the new nutrition standards. Refer to the latest regulations, find free nutrition education curricula, or get ideas for adding tasty, kid-friendly foods to enhance your school meals program.

  • Nutrition Education and Promotion
  • Recipes and Culinary Techniques for Schools
  • School Nutrition Improvement
  • Policy Guidance

Nutrition Standards for School Meals – The final rule, Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, updated the meal patterns and nutrition standards for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs to align them with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Improvements to the school meal programs, largely based on recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, are expected to enhance the diet and health of school children, and help decrease childhood obesity.

Certification of Compliance – The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act provides an additional 6-cents per lunch reimbursement to school districts that certified to be in compliance with the new meal patterns.

Additional Resources

Related Documents
MDE School Nutrition Programs Handout on Grains PDF icon

Sixteen School Lunch Programs Making a Difference

Nutritious, organic, and sustainably grown school lunches are served every day in Rome, Italy.


Over 31 million children in the United States consume most of their daily caloric intake at school. For many children, it may be the only food they eat regularly each day. But improving the quality of school lunches offers an effective way to ensure that half of what children eat is healthy, nutritious, and sustainably grown. School lunch programs that source organic, local, nutritious, and sustainable foods impact children’s health and also the health of our planet. Food Tank has compiled a list of 16 school lunch programs making strides to improve children’s health.

  1. The Baltimore Public School System, Baltimore, Maryland: The public school system in Baltimore was the first to adopt “Meatless Mondays,” which benefit students’ health as well as the environment. BCPS serves locally grown fruits, vegetables, and milk, and teaches its students how to grow their food at Great Kids Farm, a 33-acre teaching farm.
  2. The Berkeley Unified School District, Berkeley, California: The Berkeley Unified School District is committed to serving nutritious, delicious, and locally grown food to students. All processed foods, hydrogenated oils, high fructose corn syrup, refined sugars, refined flour, dyes, nitrates, additives, and chemicals are banned. Local, organic milk is served throughout cafeterias in addition to organic fruits and vegetables as much as possible.
  3. The Burlington School Food Project, Burlington, Vermont: The Burlington School Food Project provides free breakfast and dinner to 4,000 students in the Burlington School District. The project is dedicated to serving local food from farms in the area and was chosen as a model Farm to School program by the USDA in 2010.
  4. Farmhouse Café and Bakery, El Prado, New Mexico: The Farmhouse Café sponsors school garden projects, which serve over 450 meals a day at participating schools and teach children how to grow vegetables and make healthy food choices.
  5. The Finnish National Board of Education, Finland: Finland was the first country in the world to serve free school meals dating back to 1948. School meals are designed to support students’ health and to give them energy for their studies. Local fish, vegetables, fruit, and grains are featured on students’ plates to form tasty, colorful, balanced meals. Finnish law requires that half of the plate be filled with fresh and cooked vegetables.
  6. The French Ministry of National Education, France: School children in France are required to sit at the lunch table for at least a half an hour to eat a full meal. Fried food, foods high in fat, ketchup, and sweets are all limited. Meals are well-balanced and include vegetables, a warm main dish, cheese, and usually fruit for dessert. The government charges families on a sliding scale, which averages US$2.56–3.12.
  7. The Healthy Schools Campaign, Chicago, Illinois: Over 350,000 students in Chicago public schools eat healthier food thanks to the Healthy Schools Campaign. Produce is regionally grown, and chicken is raised without antibiotics in nearby Indiana.
  8. Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research, Italy: Rome has an incredibly progressive school food program. About 150,000 meals are served daily at 740 public schools. Ninety-six percent of meals are made from scratch, and 70 percent of ingredients are organic. Much of the produce and meat is local or regional, and menus reflect the seasonality of crops grown in the region.
  9. The Good Earth School Lunch Program, Marin County, California: Over 4,000 children in twelve schools throughout Marin County participate in the healthy, organic, and nutritious Good Earth School Lunch Program.
  10. Kitchen Garden Project, United Kingdom: Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver launched the Kitchen Garden Project to teach primary school children in the U.K. how to grow, cook, and consume fresh and local produce. The Kitchen Garden Project believes that introducing children to fresh fruits and vegetables at a young age is crucial to developing life-long healthy eating habits.
  11. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan: In Japan, school lunch is referred to as Shokuiku, which translates to food and nutrition education. The free school lunch program aims to promote mental and physical health and is based on government-established nutritional criteria. The program encourages sustainability by promoting environmentally friendly food production in local communities, encourages table manners, and celebrates the enjoyment of eating.
  12. Shelby County Nutrition Services, Tennessee: Over 110,000 students are served breakfast and lunch daily at Shelby County public schools, where Nutrition Services focuses on providing nutritious, healthy food to improve educational achievements. Nutrition Services are connected with the Farm to School Movement, which aims to serve healthy meals in school cafeterias, provide agriculture and nutrition education, improve student nutrition, and support local and regional farms.
  13. Ministry of Education South Korea: Over 800,000 school children in the public school system in Seoul receive hot, healthy lunches at school. The healthy and nutritious meal reflects Korean cuisine. Students are served protein, rice, kimchi (pickled vegetables), and other vegetables on the side.
  14. The Sitka “Fish to Schools” Program, Sitka, Alaska: The Sitka “Fish to Schools” Program aims to enhance students’ understanding of local seafood resources by including locally-caught seafood in the school lunch program. Students also receive education about the local fishing culture.
  15. Urban Sprouts, San Francisco, California: Since 2006, Urban Sprouts has partnered with schools throughout San Francisco to provide garden-based education in which students experience planting, growing, harvesting, and consuming crops directly from the school garden.
  16. Wellness in the Schools, New York, New York: Wellness in the Schools (WITS) encourages healthy eating, environmental awareness, and fitness as a way of life for public school kids in New York City. WITS forms partnerships with school leadership, teachers, chefs, coaches, parents, and kids, to develop and implement programs that provide nutritious foods, environments, and opportunities for kids to play, learn, and grow.

Failing to Make the Grade: How the School Lunch System is Falling Short of Its Purpose

Sam Rourke

1,000 dollars a month reads the income box of my computer screen as I check out another family at the Central Food Pantry. There stands a woman with four children by her side. I glance at her cart, full for now, but wonder how it will realistically last for an entire month given her paltry income. Inside her cart lies limited amounts of meat and produce and countless piles of donuts and processed food. This is the harsh reality that the pantry faces – the individuals at the pantry need as much food as they can get their hands on, but due to limited resources the pantry can often only provide cheap junk food. As I look at her four children, ranging from age 5-12, I am thankful that these children have the National School Lunch Program to rely on. Twice a day during the week, they can rely on their school to provide them a lunch and breakfast for free or an extremely reduced price.

But what are they really eating? A quick check of any school lunch menu around the country quickly reveals meals that aren’t exactly most people’s definition of  “nutritionally-balanced” as the NSLP claims. Staples in my high school and countless others, were chicken nuggets, hamburgers, and mac & cheese. These were normally offered with some form of fried potato and an optional vegetable that many students didn’t take. Fortunately, I was in an economic position where I could choose most days to bring a healthy lunch from home to avoid the junk that the school gave out on a daily basis. However, for many in my town and across this nation school food is their only choice if they want to stave off hunger. Here in Boone County, 31.5 % of children receive free or reduced lunch, meaning they live at or near poverty and have no choice but to accept the food school’s present on a daily basis (“Kids Count Data Center”). The school lunch program is unable to meet the needs of those who rely on it daily for their daily sustenance and contributes to rising childhood obesity rates and poor school performance. In this paper, I advocate for workable solutions parents can take to improve the school lunch program and ensure it becomes an asset in a healthy diet rather than its current status as a hindrance with numerous negative consequences.

Beginnings of a Failure

The National School Lunch Program began in 1946 under Harry S. Truman as an effort to “safeguard the health and well-being of the nation’s children” (Gunderson 1). Since its inception the program has been the subject of continuous controversy as it struggles to meet the health needs of an ever-growing number of students. With over 1/3 of the nation’s children overweight or obese according to the Center for Disease Control, concerns over what children are consuming have become ever more prevalent among parents across the United States (“Obesity and Overweight”). Serving over 32 million children a year, the lunch program certainly plays a large role in what our nation’s children consume on a daily basis (“NSLP Fact Sheet”).

Rampant Regulations and Paltry Funding = Anything Becomes Acceptable

Funding is one of the obvious problems with the school lunch program and certainly the most criticized. Healthier foods simply cost more to make and many schools across the country don’t have the resources necessary to improve the quality of their food. The National School Lunch Program cost 10.8 billion to administer last year, a sharp increase from only 3.7 billion just 20 years ago (“NSLP Fact Sheet”). While NSLP receives some reimbursement for each lunch they sell, most of the funding comes through students paying for their meals. However, this amount continues to decrease as more and more students qualify for free and reduced lunch. According to a USDA fact sheet, 81.7 percent of meals in 2011 were given as a free or reduced lunch (“Child and Adult Care Food Program”). The program simply cannot support this percentage of children who pay very little back into the system and have their meals subsidized almost completely in their entirety.

While funding is certainly an issue, it is unrealistic to believe the government will be drastically increasing funding in today’s economic climate. Another significant problem is the unnecessary regulations that bog down the lunch system. A Fox News article from last winter, shows how off-based many of these regulations in the program are. A preschooler had to eat a school-supplied meal of chicken nuggets instead of eating their home-prepared lunch (“School Lunches Deemed Unacceptable”). Apparently their lunch of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips just wasn’t up to the high standards of the USDA. Jamie Oliver was also able to expose some of this illogical regulation through his “Food Revolution” show the past few years (Gunlock 1). The very first meal Oliver made was denied because it didn’t meet government standards. The problem? No bread. His lunch of roast chicken, brown rice, salad and yogurt with fresh fruit wasn’t good enough for the USDA. How was the school meeting the bread requirement for the day? Plain old white pizza crust. A couple episodes later Oliver again prepared a healthy meal consisting of a vegetable pasta dish, baked chicken, and a fruit cup. Again he was told the meal did not meet standards and thus would not be reimbursable. The problem this time? Not enough veggies. The solution? Add french fries (“Children, Parents, and Obesity”). These examples clearly illustrate how the inflexibility of school lunch regulations further exasperates the problem of unhealthy food. Many of these regulations are dictated by the large corporations that supply the industry, leading to such things as pizza sauce and fries inclusion in the vegetable category. In 2011, when the USDA was proposing changes to the program that would have decreased potato consumption and increased the amount of tomato needed to qualify for a vegetable serving, food companies jumped in to block the changes. According to an investigative article published in the New York Times, companies such as Con Agra and Del Monte spent 5.6 million lobbying congressional representatives to vote against the proposed revised standards (Nixon 1).  This unfortunate example shows that many of the regulations within the system are set by large food suppliers desperate to keep their money, who have somehow convinced legislators that there product is the only thing kids will consume.

With these strict regulations and lack of funding to meet them, the USDA has begun to set a strikingly low standard for many of the products they end up doling out to children every day. The hottest topic regarding this lately has been the USDA’s continued acceptance of “pink slime”, despite the fact that McDonald’s and Taco Bell have rejected the concoction. The substance is made by “grinding together connective tissue and beef scraps normally destined for dog food” (Knowles 1). Microbiologist Carl Custer, a 35-year veteran of the Food Safety Inspection Service, stated, “My objection with having it (the pink slime) in the schools is that it’s not meat” (Knowles 1). It is a pretty sad state when we are feeding millions of kids something that we aren’t even really sure what to call it. In my own high school, we had a regular main dish called the “panther rib.” After three years of eating it, I’m still not really quite sure what the concoction was made of. I personally avoided it whenever possible, but most other kids reluctantly ate it with no other choice in hand. The few times I did eat it, I actually thought it was pretty good, but I couldn’t get over the fact that I wasn’t sure what I was eating. Daily lunches, like the one chronicled above, that leave parents unsure of what their children are eating on a daily basis are not acceptable to any healthy society.

Mentally and Physically Unhealthy Children

School lunches are often blamed as a contributing factor in the ever- increasing rates of obesity in children. A recent study by the University of Michigan found that 38% of students who routinely eat school lunch were overweight or obese, as compared to only 24.4% of children who bring their own meals (Bruske). This may have something to do with the fact that 91.2% of the children who brought lunch from home consumed fruits or vegetables on a regular basis as compared to only 16.3% of children eating school food (Bruske 1). According to a 2009 Center for Disease Control study, obesity costs the U.S. 147 billion in health costs every year and that number continues to rise as obesity rates rise among children and all age groups (CDC’s LEAN Works! – A Workplace Obesity Prevention Program).

While weight gain is a serious consequence and the most commonly discussed, children face many other consequences tied to reliance on school lunch as well.  A study in Canada published in the Journal of School Health found that students who eat a diet rich in fruit, vegetables, protein and fiber, coupled with less fat calories, did better on their literacy tests than those eating foods high in salt and saturated fat. (Asbridge,Florence,Veugelers). Additionally healthyschoollunches.org, a website dedicated to improving school foodstates that more than 70 percent of schools struggle to meet the maximum saturated fat requirement set forth by USDA. Add in the fact that a disproportional amount of students who rely on school lunch come from poor families and you can see how the school lunch program contributes to poorer children being fatter and less academically successful. The effects don’t stop there as inadequate nutrition can also severely hamper a child’s cognitive development according to the American Psychological Association (“Changing diet and exercise for kids”). Every parent wants their child to perform well in the classroom, but every day you allow your child to consume school lunch you hamper their ability to be a star student.

Fight for More Funding

Concerned parents and any caring citizen all over this country need to continue to remain vigilant in the fight for improvements to school lunches. Over the past couple of years it seems lawmakers are finally hearing the cries of citizens concerned for the health of our nation’s children. Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act last year as the first major overhaul of the program in 15 years (Wootan 1). Under the new regulations, schools will be required to offer fruits and vegetables every day, increase the amount of whole-grain foods and reduce the sodium and fats in the foods served, according to an MSNBC article (Wood 1). However, they will only be getting a .06 cent increase in funding per meal, presenting many schools with the hard task of meeting healthier standards with a very unsubstantial increase in funding. Improving the standards is an important step, but this solution alone won’t create any substantial change. Increased funding is always welcome but there have been many attempts on the federal level to increase support for nutritious eating and all have largely failed up to this point.

Make your Kitchen Reflect the Change you Want

The next solution as these regulations come into place is to actually get children to eat the foods put on their plates. This is where parents can really make the greatest effort. It is easy to blame the government for failing to feed children healthy foods and that is what many of us do. However, the foods children are exposed to at home play a vital role in their willingness to accept healthier food at school. If a child never consumes vegetables or fruit at home why should they be expected to magically consume these items at school? One key step parents can take is to take the time out of their hectic schedules to sit down and have a family meal together. Family meals increase the likelihood that children will eat fruits, vegetables, and grains and decreases the likelihood of them snacking on unhealthy foods, according to the website Kidshealth (“Healthy Eating”). Another important step for parents is making sure to feed their children a healthy breakfast. According to the American Dietetic Association, children who eat breakfast perform better in the classroom and on the playground, with better concentration, problem-solving skills, and eye-hand coordination (“The Many Benefits of Breakfast”). By providing a healthy breakfast and sitting down for a healthy dinner in the evening, parents can play an important step in ensuring their children are receiving the proper nutrition that may be missing from their child’s school lunch. And feeding your child at home isn’t the expensive venture many make it out to be. A recent New York Times article entitled “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?”, pointed out that a meal for four at McDonalds costs around $28 dollars while a meal of chicken, vegetables, salad, and milk can be made for only $14 dollars. With proper planning and budgeting parents can make serving healthy food at home a reality without emptying their wallets.

Get Involved at School as Well

It doesn’t just have to be at home that parents and concerned citizens can get involved in ensuring the quality of your children’s food. In a journal article entitled, “A Revolution in School Lunches” Douglas McGray takes a look at some of the positive reforms in regards to school lunches across America. McGray profiles a company called Revolution Foods, a fast-growing for-profit company that caters healthy breakfasts and lunches to mostly lower-income schools, as an example of positive reform in cafeterias across America. The company’s executive chef, Amy Klein, acknowledges the challenges of getting children to eat healthy food, but through careful techniques she has been able to feed approximately 30,000 kids (McGray 50). Another prime example of adults taking action has occurred in Appleton, Wisconsin over about the last decade, as profiled in a report prepared for Sen. Russ Feingold by Natural Ovens, the initiative’s founding company. In 1997, Natural Ovens, from nearby Manitowoc, began the program to bring healthy foods into local schools. Since that time Appleton’s program has experienced a remarkable turnaround in student behavior with Principal LuAnn Coenen reporting a dramatic decrease in dropouts, expulsions, drug use, and possession of weapons among students. Though the program has cost the school district some extra money to provide healthier food Coenen said repeatedly in the article that it has been well worth it because of decreases in violence, vandalism, and litter, which has reduced costs in other areas (“A Different Kind of School Lunch”). These examples highlight how when parents and concerned adults do take action real change does occur. Parents need to make it a prerogative to be creative and come up with solutions to improve the food situation at their child’s school. Maybe it’s a garden outside, a weekly farmer’s market field trip, or a complete overhaul of the lunch program like these two districts did. Whatever it is, make a promise to not be content with the status quo and be willing to step up and be the initiator of the change you want to see in your child’s school.

Parting Words of Wisdom

As the waistlines of America’s children continue to expand, numerous factors play a role. Undoubtedly one of the factors responsible are the nutrient deficient and often unhealthy meals provided everyday by the National School Lunch Program to over 32 million children. Children who eat these meals are more likely to be overweight and suffer many other consequences as well, including decreased school performance and cognitive development. As a parent, each one of you wants the best for your child. It is time for you to start realizing that what you feed your child has a direct correlation to many important factors. An easy step is to take matters in to your own hands and make your child a healthy lunch everyday. However, if that doesn’t sound reasonable parents can at least take control of what they feed their child at home. You need to take action by ensuring you feed your child a healthy breakfast to start the day. Then when evening comes and the urge to stop by McDonald’s for dinner arises, you have to be able to resist and instead choose to prepare a healthy meal at home. These children that are exposed to healthy options at home will be more likely to choose more nutritious options when in line for school lunch. These children will then be prepared to perform well in school, on the athletic field, and maintain a healthy body weight through their childhood and into the future. In other words, any parents wish for their child.

 

Reference List

“A Different Kind of School Lunch.” Natural Oven’s Report on Wisconsin School Project. Summer 2010. Web Report. 25 April 2012. http://www.feingold.org/Bluebook/page-09-wisconsin.pdf

Asbridge, Mark; Florence, Michelle; Veugelers, Paul. “Diet Quality and Academic Performance”. Journal of School Health. 78.4 (2008): 209-215. Academic Search Complete. April 17, 2012.

Bittman, Mark. “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?”. The New York Times. 24 Sept. 2011. Web. 27 April 2012.

Bruske, Ed. “New study says school food makes kid fatter”. Grist. 15 March 2010. Web. March 2012.

“CDC’s Lean Works! – A Workplace Obesity Prevention Program”. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nov. 16 2011. Web. April 2012.

“Changing Diet and Exercise for Kids.” American Psychological Association. Web. April 2012.

“Child and Adult Care Food Program.” USDA. April 2012. Web. April 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/ccsummar.htm

Gunderson, Gordon. “The National School Lunch Program”. USDA. Web-PDF. 9 March 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLP-Program%20History.pdf

Gunlock, Julie. “Children, Parents, and Obesity.” National Affairs. Winter 2011. Web. April 2012.

“Healthy Eating.” Kids Health. Feb. 2012. Web. April 2012.

“Kids Count Data Center.” The Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2008. Web. April 2012.

Knowles, David. “Partners in Slime.” The Daily. Winter 2012. Web. 25 March 2012.

McGray, Douglas. “A Revolution in School Lunches.” Revolution Food Inc. 175.16 (2010): 50-53. Academic Search Complete. Web. March 2012.

Nixon, Ron. “Congress Blocks New Rules on School Lunches”. 15 Nov. 2011. Web. April 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/politics/congress-blocks-new-rules-on-school-lunches.html

“NSLP Fact Sheet.” USDA. October 2011. Web. March 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf

“Obesity and Overweight.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. June 21 2010. Web. April 2012.

“School lunch deemed unacceptable.” Fox News. Fox News Channel, 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 15 March 2012.

Suddath, Claire. “School Lunches”. Time Magazine. Oct. 2009. Web. 13 March 2012.

Wood, Sylvia. “Students to see healthier school lunches under new USDA rules”. MSNBC.com. 25 Jan. 2012. Web. March 2012.

Wootan, Margo. “A Landmark Step As The Child Nutrition Bill Is Signed In To Law”. Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution. 22 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 March 2012.

Zelman, Kathleen. “The Many Benefits of Breakfast” Healthy Eating and Diet. Web MD, Summer 2007. Web. 26 April 2012.

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Early Programs by States

By Gordon W. Gunderson

Early Programs in the United States

In spite of information available from the vast experience and progress made in most of the nations of Europe, school feeding in the United States underwent the same evolution as in Europe, beginning with sporadic food services undertaken by private societies and associations interested in child welfare and education. The Children’s Aid Society of New York initiated a program in 1853, serving meals to students attending the vocational school. However, it did not gain sufficient momentum to convince other organizations or municipalities to do likewise.

There can be no doubt that Poverty, a 1904 book by Robert Hunter, had a strong influence upon the U.S. effort to feed hungry, needy children in school.

Hunter was vitally concerned with hunger, particularly among the children in poor families. ” . . . but the poverty of any family is likely to be most serious at the very time when the children most need nurture, when they are most dependent, and when they are obtaining the only education which they are ever to receive. Guidance and supervision of the parents are impossible because they must work; the nurture is insufficient because there are too many hungry mouths to feed; learning is difficult because hungry stomachs and languid bodies and thin blood are not able to feed the brain. The lack of learning among so many poor children is certainly due, to an important extent, to this cause. There must be thousands -very likely sixty or seventy thousand children-in New York City alone who often arrive at school hungry and unfitted to do well the work required. It is utter folly, from the point of view of learning, to have a compulsory school law which compels children, in that weak physical and mental state which results from poverty, to drag themselves to school and to sit at their desks, day in and day out, for several years, learning little or nothing. If it is a matter of principle in democratic America that every child shall be given a certain amount of instruction, let us render it possible for them to receive it, as monarchial countries have done, by making full and adequate provision for the physical needs of the children who come from the homes of poverty.”

Philadelphia

Toward the turn of the century significant efforts at school feeding were evidenced almost simultaneously in Philadelphia and Boston.

In Philadelphia, the Starr Center Association began serving penny lunches in one school in 1894, later expanding the service to another. Soon a lunch committee was established within the Home and School League, and lunches were extended to include nine schools in the city.

Dr. Cheesman A. Herrick, who was principal of the William Penn High School for Girls when it first opened in 1909, is credited with accomplishing the transfer of responsibilities for operation and support of the lunch program from charitable organizations to the Philadelphia School Board. He requested that a system be established to assure that the lunches served would be based upon sound principles of nutrition and required that the program be under the direction of a home economics graduate. The Board granted his request on an experimental basis and on the condition that the program would be self-supporting. The experiment proved successful, and the following year lunch services were extended to the Southern Manual Training School and later to three additional units.

In the spring of 1912, the School Board established a Department of High School Lunches and- directed that the food services be inaugurated in all the high schools of the city. During all this time the Home and School League had continued operating the feeding program in the nine elementary schools, and continued to do so until May of 1915, when it reported to the Board that the need for a lunch system had been clearly demonstrated and that it could not be successfully operated by an organization outside the school system. As a result, the School Board placed the operation of both high school and elementary lunch programs under the supervision of the Department of High School Lunches and authorized the extension of the program to other elementary schools. Under the Herrick plan, light, heat, cooking gas and the original equipment were supplied by the Board. Otherwise, the program was to be self-supporting.  12

Boston

Early programs in Boston were inaugurated under the auspices of the Women’s Educational and Industrial Union. According to a report of the Union’s activities in 1908, the organization had begun serving hot lunches in September of that year to high schools which were under the supervision of the Boston School Committee. A central kitchen system was used and lunches were transported to the participating schools. There was a school lunch advisory committee which set the policy for the program and actual administration of the program was in the hands of a lunchroom superintendent and a director of school lunches.  13

An experimental program for elementary schools was begun in January 1910, taking the form of a mid-morning lunch prepared by the class in Home Economics three days each week. On two days of each week sandwiches and milk were served. The children ate their meals at their desks, there being no lunchroom in the building.

Before the end of the school year (1909-1910) five additional schools were benefiting from the program, and a total of 2,000 pupils were being served each day, according to a report submitted by Ellen H. Richards in the “Journal of Home Economics” for December 1910. She stated further that “The teachers are unanimous in the belief that the luncheons are helping the children both physically and mentally. They are more attentive and interested in the lessons during the last hour of the morning and the result in their recitations gives the proof.”

Milwaukee

In 1904, the same year that Poverty was published, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, began its efforts at meeting the need when the Women’s School Alliance of Wisconsin began furnishing lunches to children in three centers located in areas where both parents were working and the greatest need was evident. The project was supported by donations from private individuals, churches, societies and clubs. The lunches were prepared in the homes of women who lived near the schools and were willing to cook and serve the meals. Improvement in attendance and scholarship was noted, and six additional centers were in operation by 1910.

The preparation and serving of the lunches had by that time been transferred to the school buildings and a matron was employed at each school. The price of the meal was one cent for children who could pay, and they were served all the soup and rolls they could eat. Those who could not pay received their lunches free. The Alliance recognized the need for establishing additional centers throughout the city, but it was unable to raise the necessary funds for their support. The county board was requested to assume support of the school feeding program, but the proposal failed, it being the contention of the board that such action-would encourage parents to be indolent and shift parental responsibilities to the municipality.  14

School Feeding Supported

In the year following the publication of Hunter’s Poverty, there appeared another, similar publication dealing with poverty and the plight of poverty-stricken families. This was John Spargo’s The Bitter Cry of the Children. Like Hunter, Spargo dwelt extensively upon the misfortunes of children and the effect of malnourishment upon their physical and mental well-being. He estimated, after very careful study, that “not less than 2,000,000 children of school age in the United States are the victims of poverty which denies them common necessities, particularly adequate nourishment…. Such children are in very many cases incapable of successful mental effort, and much of our national expenditure for education is in consequence an absolute waste.”  15

The introduction to The Bitter Cry of the Children was supplied by none other than Robert Hunter, the author of Poverty. In commenting upon Mr. Spargo’s publication, he states, “Few of us sufficiently realize the powerful effect upon life of adequate nutritious food. Few of us ever think of how much it is responsible for our physical and mental advancement or what a force it has been in forwarding our civilized life.” Mr. Spargo’s emphasis upon the importance and appropriateness of feeding the school child is borne out in the following quotations from his book: “To the contention that society, having assumed the responsibility of insisting that every child shall be educated, and providing the means of education, is necessarily bound to assume the responsibility of seeing that they are made fit to receive that education, so far as possible, there does not seem to be any convincing answer. It will be objected that for society to do this would mean the destruction of the responsibility of the parents. That is obviously true. But it is equally true of education itself, the responsibility for which society has assumed. Some individualists there are who contend that society is wrong in doing this, and their opposition to the proposal that it should undertake to provide the children with food is far more logical than that of those who believe that society should assume the responsibility of educating the child, but not that of equipping it with the necessary physical basis for that education.”

New York

Robert Hunter had estimated that there were sixty or seventy thousand school children in New York who were not capable of doing good school work because of malnourishment. As has been previously noted, the situation had no doubt been recognized by the Children’s Aid Society of New York as far back as 1853. In that year they began serving lunches to students at a vocational school. No significant programs in the public schools developed, however, until 1908 when Dr. William H. Maxwell, superintendent of schools, made a special plea in his report to the Board of Education. “Again I appeal to you, in the name of suffering childhood, to establish in each school facilities whereby the pupils may obtain simple wholesome food at cost price.”

A school lunch committee consisting of physicians and social workers was thereupon organized to find out whether a lunch might be self supporting at a 3-cent charge to students. Two schools were selected on a trial basis. Two years later the board authorized expansion of the program to other schools of the city and agreed that the board would pay the cost of equipment and gas and supply the necessary rooms. The cost of food and labor was to be met from the sale of lunches.

During this period height and weight measurements were generally used and recognized as standards in determining nutritional adequacies. Consequently such records were maintained for 143 children for three months in the New York school lunch experiment. Records were also maintained on 81 children who did not participate in the lunch program. It was found that the 143 children had gained 91 pounds 4 ounces, or an average of 10.2 ounces each, while the 81 children gained 17 pounds or an average of 3.4 ounces. In both groups some children had lost weight, but the proportion of those who had lost weight was less among those eating the school lunches than among those who did not. This was considered as proof of the beneficial effects of one good planned meal each day at school.

Until January 1920, lunches in the elementary schools of New York had been supported by volunteer social organizations. In the 1919-20 school year, the Board of Education assumed full responsibility for all programs in Manhattan and the Bronx, and in the following year for all the programs.

Cleveland

Elementary school lunch service began in Cleveland, Ohio, on December 6,1909, when the Cleveland Federation of Women’s Clubs began serving breakfasts to 19 children at the Eagle School. One additional school was added in 1910, and by 1915 meals were being provided for all special classes in the grade schools, excepting the school for the deaf. In total about 710 children were being provided for each day.

School lunch services in Cleveland took on a unique aspect. The Board of Education furnished the equipment and provided the lunchrooms. However, “For crippled and open air children the Federation of Women’s Clubs provides food and at each school employs a woman to prepare it. For the blind, the Society for Promoting the Interests of the Blind takes charge. The committees, in consultation with principal, medical inspector, and supervisor of high school lunches, make out the different menus. The Board of Education contracts with these committees to furnish meals to exceptional children in specified schools at so much per child per day, according to the kind and number of meals supplied. 16

In some schools the meals were served at 10 a.m. and again at 2 p.m., and the children went home for their noon lunch. In other schools the lunches were served at noon. Apparently “open air” children received the two lunches each day, and the noon meal was supplied for the blind and crippled children who did not go home at noon.

The meal generally consisted of “bread and jam and a hot dish, such as beef stew, minced meat with potatoes, thick soup, or macaroni with tomato sauce. A few, on order from the medical inspector, get milk in the morning”.  17

In the summer of 1909, lunchrooms were installed in seven high schools in Cleveland. For 16 years prior to this, lunches had been provided by “lunch wagons” going to the schools or by stores in the vicinity serving hot meals at noon. In some schools the “basket lunches” were served on the school premises by caterers. Even after the installation of lunchrooms and equipment in the seven high schools, the operations in the schools were actually conducted by the former caterers under contract with the Board of Education on a concessionaire basis.

In the contract the Board of Education agreed to furnish all the necessary equipment, as well as heat, light, gas and water, sufficient for the proper maintenance of the lunchrooms, and to replace all equipment rendered useless through natural wear and tear.

In 1914-15 the normal school and all high schools except two were provided with lunch services. This involved a total of 6,715 students. All items served were priced a la carte and a typical “menu” offered a selection from about 15 items, including milk. “In some schools the range of choice is too great, in others too small. In all it is uneven. Vegetable soup is always vegetable soup and the price is 4 cents; but price is the only constant factor, for the materials used vary from school to school. That is, a nickel will buy more food, often of better quality, in one school than it will in another.”  18

Milk was furnished to all schools by one dairy selected by the lunchroom supervisor.

“All other supplies are chosen by the individual concessionaires, who are entirely responsible for the service. In a number of schools they prepare the food themselves, which increases their difficulties for they are frequently interrupted by trades people, by lunchroom helpers asking questions, by stray students who need attention, and by teachers on diet who want beef juice or an eggnog, or by other teachers who have a free hour and want a special meal. Lunch has to be prepared in between these demands and dishes are sometimes ready long before the regular lunch period.”  19

Naturally, concessionaires had no guaranteed, minimum income. During the 1914-15 school year, concessionaire’s profits ranged from $942 in one school to as little as $124 in another. The median for 10 schools was $605. The comments of a survey committee concerning the “Place of Lunch Service in the School System” is worthy of special note: “School lunches meet a natural need of all children. The purpose of the service is to teach children to choose wisely the food they buy. The conduct of school lunches is a business, an art, and a science…. The Superintendent of Lunches should have the same rank as the director of any other special division and be compensated accordingly. She should be subordinate to the educational department, for her work bears a direct relation to all health teaching in the schools and offers an opportunity to teach children the ethics and economies of spending, and various factors affecting the price of school meals and restaurant meals.”  20  In the summary of its findings and recommendations the survey committee states, among other things. “The school lunch division should reach all children; it should provide wholesome and nutritious food for them at cost, train them in sane habits of eating, and teach them to choose wisely what food they buy.”  21

Cincinnati

Almost simultaneously with the installation of lunchrooms in Cleveland. civic and social organizations were preparing for serving penny lunches in at least one school in Cincinnati. Here, again, the school board furnished the equipment, excepting that the very first equipment was paid for from private donations.

Five food items were served every day, two of which were hot foods. Each item was sold for a penny. The following are samples of menu offerings: “1. Hot meat sandwich; baked sweet potato; oranges; candy balls; graham crackers. 2. Hot wieners; rice pudding in cones; candy; bananas; cakes.” The salary of the cook was paid by the Council of Jewish Women. All other costs were met by lunchroom receipts.

St. Louis

In St. Louis, five schools in congested areas of the city were selected for an experiment in school lunch services in October 1911. High schools already had some form of lunch service, but it was decided to expand the services to elementary schools primarily for poorly nourished children and for those children who could not go home at noon. About 900 children were participating in the five centers. At the outset the food was prepared at the Central High School kitchen and transported to the elementary schools. This was found to be excessively costly, however, and after a month’s experience the preparation was transferred to each of the participating schools.

Originally the board purchased the food, but “It was decided, however, that it was illegal to spend public funds for the purchase of food and the board was obliged to abandon the work.”  22  Consequently, the programs were required to be self-supporting aside from the cost of equipment, which was paid by the board.

Chicago

According to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 37, issued in 1921, “Chicago has the most intensive school lunch system in America.” At that time, all the city’s high schools and 60 elementary schools were carrying on school feeding programs as a full responsibility of the Chicago Board of Education. “Most of the high school children attend the lunchroom for part of their meal at least, and in the elementary schools approximately 31,000 children are served daily.”

The program had its beginning in 1910, when the Chicago Board of Education authorized the expenditure of $1,200 to begin an experimental program of serving hot lunches to children in six elementary schools.  23  By 1916, the number of elementary schools participating had grown to 28 and 31 high schools had joined the program.

Los Angeles

Los Angeles had entered upon a fairly substantial program by 1921. The Board of Education sponsored the program in nine high schools, eight intermediate, and 31 elementary schools. The participation in high schools ranged from 450 to 1,800 students per day per school, in the intermediate school 700 to 1,000 per school, and in the elementary system approximately 120 pupils per day per school. The programs in the high schools and intermediate schools were managed by student body associations or by a cafeteria director selected from the Home Economics Department. The elementary schools selected for participation in the program had a high percentage of students needing the noonday lunch because of defective nutrition. The undernourished children were fed at noon and in some cases were given a snack at 10 a.m. Lunches were sold at cost, but were given free to those unable to pay. The deficit in the elementary program was taken care of by the P.T.A. In the high schools and intermediate schools students unable to pay for their lunches were given work in the Home Economics Department or in other areas in the school to pay for their meals.

In a 1918 survey by the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, concerning school lunchroom services in 86 cities having over 50,000 population, it was found that only 25 percent of them provided lunch services in elementary schools, but that 76 percent had some form of lunch services in high schools. In high schools it was found that the noon lunch period was short and students came long distances to school. Some form of meal service was, therefore, considered essential. For the most part, elementary school children lived in the neighborhood of the school and could go home for their noonday meal. Improvement of nutrition was not a part of the consideration. Only five of the cities reporting lunchroom services in high schools indicated that the program had been instituted as a means of overcoming malnutrition among the students.

Rural Schools

Nationally, rural schools had a special problem in attempting to establish warm noonday lunches for their pupils. Almost without exception there was no room available for setting up a kitchen and dining area. Children came to school from long distances, and their lunches at noon consisted mainly of cold sandwiches, many of them of questionable nutritive value.

Efforts were made beginning in the early 1900’s to provide some means of warming certain foods brought from home or to prepare a hot food of some kind at school as a supplement to the foods brought from home. Public funds for such purposes were generally not available. But many ingenious teachers devised plans for preparing soups or similar hot dishes from meats and vegetables brought to school by pupils as a donation for the general use of all. Students took turns in helping to prepare the foods before the morning session began. Such dishes were cooked in a large kettle set on top of the stove which also heated the school room. In Wisconsin, an extensive program known as “the pint jar method” was used in heating foods brought from home. Students were encouraged to bring such items as soups, macaroni, cocoa, etc. in a pint jar. The pint jars were set into a bucket of water on top of the room heater or stove, and by lunch time such foods would be piping hot. Much stress was placed upon the importance of students receiving some hot food at school each day to supplement the cold sandwiches (sometimes frozen solid by the time the student reached school).

County home demonstration agents of the University Extension Service were extremely helpful to rural schools in devising plans for providing some supplementary hot foods and in drawing up lists of suggested “menus” in advance.

Parent-Teacher Associations became increasingly concerned and active in the school lunch movement, and supported activities through donations of funds and equipment. Pots, pans, cooking utensils, portable ovens, and domestic type ranges were often donated by the associations or even by individual families. Such assistance was invaluable in getting the program started in many rural and village schools.

In 1914 the Pinellas County (Florida) health officer, decided to experiment at the school to see what results would come out of a program which would provide each child with a half pint of milk a day. To get the program started a large white cow was placed on the playground with posters and other material to explain what was being attempted. Amid this setting the children were served their milk. The health officer was so impressed with the results that he suggested they serve a bowl of soup to the children with the milk.

A group of mothers and the principal planned and carried out the project serving the children a hot bowl of soup with crackers and one-half pint of milk. The meat and some of the potatoes were donated by the mothers. They also furnished the utensils, and the principal supplied the vegetables grown in the school garden.

Under these varied means of support -by philanthropic organizations, school-oriented associations, school district boards, and individuals-the school lunch program continued to expand, gaining momentum during the decade of the 1920’s. It was estimated that by 1981 there were 64,500 cafeterias in operation throughout the country in addition to perhaps 11,500 smaller units serving a single hot dish daily.

The depression years of the 1930’s deepened the concern over hunger and malnourishment among school children, and many States and municipalities adopted legislation, some of them including appropriations, to enable schools to serve noonday meal to their children. 24

Footnotes

12  Emma Smedley, The School Lunch: Its Organization and Management in Philadelphia, Smedley, 1920.
13  Marion Cronan, The School Lunch, Peoria, Illinois, Charles A. Bennett, Inc., 1962.
14  Mrs. Duane Mowry, Pennv Lunches in Milwaukee Schools, American City 4 (6), p. 283-288.
15  John Spargo. The Bitter Cry of the Children, Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1906, p.117.
16  Alice C. Bouhton, Household Arts and School Lunches, Cleveland Education Survey 1915, pp. 121-122.
17  Ibid., P. 126.
18  Alice C. Boughton, Household Arts and School Lunches, Cleveland Education Survey 1915, pp. 145-146.
19  Ibid., p. 151.
20  Alice C. Boughton, Household Arts and School Lunches, Cleveland Education Survey l915, p. 162.
21  The findings and recommendation in the report contain no reference to provision of meals to children who were unable to pay.
22  Department of Interior, Bureau of Education Bulletin No 37, 1921, p. 24.
23  School Feeding in the United States, FDPB, P&MA, USDA, June 1947.
24  Howard L. Briggs, and Constance C. Hart, From basket Lunches to Cafeterias-A Story of Progress, Nation’s Schools, 8:51-5, 1931.

Cambria-Friesland School District The Heart and Future of the Community – Wordware School Lunch Software

CF AWARDS BANQUET

The High School Awards Banquet is being held on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Farmers & Merchants Union Bank Auditorium.  A light dinner will be served.  All family and community members are invited and encouraged to attend.

Scholarships and high school awards, including forensics, high honor roll, perfect attendance, and play participation will be presented after the light dinner.

Please join us in honoring our students.


End-of-Year Reminders

Are lunch balances up-to-date?  Outstanding class debts?

Is all sports equipment turned in?

Does your child have any library books that need to be returned?

Is your child missing clothing, shoes, boots, etc.?  Check the lost and found area near the offices.


PowerSchool

The school’s student software program, PowerSchool, upgraded the Parent Portal over Thanksgiving break. To access your child(ren)’s grades, attendance, etc., you will need to sign in with your current school issued ID and password at http://216.56.145.2/public/. Then select the “create an account” tab, from there you will need to select “create an account” again on the bottom right.  You will be asked to create a new user name and password. Then you will enter your child(ren)’s name and YOUR OLD user name and password for each student. This will now allow you to have one user name and password for all of your children.

Once you sign in the first time with your new user name and password, on the left side you will need to go to email notifications and there will be a box that you will need to check to receive weekly emails.

Please feel free to contact Pam Hendrickson at 920-348-5135, ext.158 if you do not know your ID and password, have any questions, or if you are not successful in updating your account.


NEW District YouTube Channel
See Link at bottom left

Brook Valley School – New on – line payment option for families will be available beginning

Brook Valley School is pleased to introduce a new program :e-Funds For Schools. This program offers various options for parents/guardians who choose to make payments on-line and is extremely user friendly. You will
have the ability have lunch payments electronically withdrawn from your checking account or charged to your credit card, you also have the flexibility to make a payment at any time through the school’s website. The e-Funds For Schools service is offered to you by a third party service
provider and they charge for processing your payment(s), similar to other on-line banking services. The district does not request or keep records of family checking or credit card account information. The e-Funds For Schools electronic payment service is provided to the school by a third party service provider. The service provider has a nominal fee for their service.
There is a $1.00 transaction convenience fee for each electronic checking
payment that you make. The system carries a Non -Sufficient Funds (NSF) charge if the payment is “bad”. For payments made by credit
or debit card, there is a convenience fee of $2.45 per each $100 increment in the transaction. When you set up your account, please review your options carefully.You are in full control of your account and can make a payment at any time that is convenient for you. No payments will be allowed without your knowledge and authorization through this secure payment system.
By providing your home and/or work email address, an email notification informing you of the student’s name, purpose of the payment, and the amount of the item will be sent to you each time that a payment is to be processed. The e-Funds For School site is secure and uses industry standard data encryption. The link below will take you to the
ESU #3 log in page:
https://eps.mvpbanking.com/cgi-bin/efs/register.pl?district=55910 How does e-Funds for Schools work? Families set up and maintain their own logins, passwords, and payment preferences. Your account information is retained in a password-protected file.oe- Funds For Schools
will help to eliminate last minute check writing hassles, improve
efficiencies, and help cut costs for both you and the school district
On-line payments will help eliminate the worry that your children could lose or forget the money intended for school items or that it might be spent on other non-school related items.
Payments from a credit card or checking account may easily be set up. Parents/guardians may establish a reoccurring payment or may opt to make a one-timepayment.
The program offers various types of payment to families that include but are not limited to instructional materials, field trip fees, yearbook fees, graduation fees, and of course food service payments. The system may be expanded to include other fees as well.
Your payment history for the year is available with a click of the mouse

Brookings Schools Child Nutrition – Wordware School Lunch Software

Our goal at the Brookings School District is to provide high quality, nutritious meals to students in our district.  Breakfast and lunch are offered at all of our schools.

 Child Nutrition Director
Laura Duba – 696-4713
     Dakota Prairie
Becky Hanson –
BHS
Marge Benoit – 696-4178
Child Nutrition Assistant
Penny Eliason- 696-4722
MMS
Dawn McCarthy – 696-4508
Medary
Nicole Covrig – 696-4370
Camelot
Becky Hanson – 696-4445
Hillcrest
Dawn Waldner – 696-4610

WordWare Letter to Parents

ALLERGIES AND SPECIAL DIETS:
Special Diet Prescription for Meals form must be submitted to the School Nutrition Office at the School Administration Offices to ensure implementation of special meal substitutions for your child when eating school lunch. Food substitutions will be made for students with food allergies only.

Special Diet Prescription for Meals form is used for students with a disability and a major life activity that must be affected by this disability.  This form must be completely filled out and signed by a physician.

The form for Special Diet Prescription for Meals will be kept on file while the student is enrolled in the Brookings School District. If your child’s food allergies should change, a new Special Diet Prescription for Meals must be submitted to the School Nutrition Office.

Special Diet Prescription for Meals form is available at the School Administration Office, 2130 8th Street South, or at all school websites under Food Service.  Contact the School Nutrition Office at 696-4713 if you have questions.

We self-serve fruits and vegetables in all schools.  If you feel that your child’s food allergy might be triggered by possible cross-contamination, we will make sure that their tray is dished seperately.  Please contact the School Nutrition Office 605-696-4713 to let us know.

 

Brook Valley School – Lunch Program Question Answers

How do I enroll my student at Brook Valley School?

You will need to contact your local school district. Students are referred and placed at Brook Valley School by their local school district.

 

What school district is Brook Valley in?

We are not in any local school district.
We are part of the special education services offered by ESU #3 to the school districts in Washington, Cass, Douglas and Sarpy counties.

 

What services does Brook Valley School provide?

We offer the following direct educational services- individualized education plan with a strong behavior management component, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, counseling services, behavioral consultation, nursing services, assistive technology services, vision services and autism consultation services.

 

Where is Brook Valley located?

We are located at 6960 South 110th Street in La Vista.

 

How do we know if the school is closing for bad weather?

If Millard Public Schools have cancelled classes, Brook Valley will be closed. Brook Valley will NOT be listed separately.

 

What are the student hours?

Our students’ school day is from 9am to 2pm.

 

Who takes care of the transportation?

All transportation arrangements are handled by your local school district.

 

Whose school calendar do you follow?

Brook Valley’s calendar is unique due to the training of staff. However, it closely follows the Millard Public School district calendar.

 

What kind of lunches do you have?

Hot lunches are contracted through Millard Public Schools.

 

Do you have free/reduced lunches?

To participate in the Free or Reduced Price Meal Program, you must complete a Free or Reduced Meal Application at your home/resident school district office each year. All free/reduced forms must be filled out every year and returned to Brook Valley by the first of September to prevent your previous year’s benefits from expiring. You will be notified of your status. Any checks sent for lunch money must be made out to ESU #3.

 

Technology solutions for the cafeteria and beyond..