SCHOOLS

Davenport school meal prices might go up next year

2013-03-04T21:58:00Z 2013-03-06T04:54:18Z Davenport school meal prices might go up next yearTara Becker The Quad-City Times
March 04, 2013 9:58 pm  • 

Davenport Community School District students who pay full price for meals will likely see an increase in price next year. The board of education will vote March 18 to increase the cost of breakfast and lunch by 10 cents.

That means the price for breakfast will increase to $1 for elementary students and $1.25 for intermediate and high school students.

Lunches will increase to $2.10 for elementary students, $2.30 for intermediate students and $2.50 for high school students.

The increase does not apply to pre-kindergarten students and those receiving free and reduced meal prices.

The increase is a federal mandate under the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which is designed to fight the rising rate of childhood obesity.

As such, school districts are required to raise meal prices gradually over the next several years until the price reaches $2.59, the current amount the government reimburses schools for students who receive free lunches, district spokeswoman Dawn Saul said.

Saul said school districts are not required to raise the price more than 10 cents per year, although they have the option to go beyond that. Davenport has no such plans to raise the price by more than 10 cents, she said.

There is no set timetable for when districts must reach the federally mandated meal price.

The district raised its prices by 10 cents in the previous school year, Saul said.

A big unknown for the district is whether the federal price of $2.59 will increase, said Mickie Carrington, director of food and nutrition services.

“We’re chasing the federal standard, because each year it will change,” Carrington told the board.

Copyright 2015 The Quad-City Times. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(35) Comments

  1. cd1001
    Report Abuse
    cd1001 - March 06, 2013 4:31 pm
    If you want to talk about food stamps and subsidized school lunch, really, It's corporate welfare. We don't want to make WalMart pay their employees a living wage, so the taxpayers make up for what WalMart should be paying. We're basically subsidizing the businesses so they can pay their top executives millions in bonuses and pay their shareholders millions. And the rich make money, the working poor get food stamps and live hand to mouth with absolutely no security in life at all, and you get to complain that WalMart's hard working employees' kids get lunch at school.

    You want your taxes to stop paying for the needs of the poor? Vote to at least double the minimum wage.
  2. Jeffrey Smith
    Report Abuse
    Jeffrey Smith - March 06, 2013 7:37 am
    Feel free to name the school district that sends home food bags on the weekends. While it is not a bad idea, a simple call to area schools got me a resounding "No, we dont'" from each.

    Rampant crime with declining education? Yep. Education declines because we have hungry kids not getting nutritious meals at home or at school. And you want to eliminate that? Yep - increased crime, then.

    Talk about complete ignorance - you are referring to the lifeline program, passed under Reagan, which first subsidized landlines. - it was expanded under George W Bush in 2008, to include Tracphone cell phones, not Obama, as you claim.

    It's not paid for by taxpayers, either. It's paid out of the USF from a fee assessed by telecom providers, who may or may not pass that cost on.

    What did Obama have to do with this? Well, in 2012, he observed costs were skyrocketing and had the FCC investigate the rampant fraud waste and abuse, caused by the implementation of GW Bush's cell phone program.

    The phone is used for 911 services, calls from jobs, calls to family members. read up.

    http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-link-affordable-telephone-service-income-eligible-consumers

  3. Contemptio
    Report Abuse
    Contemptio - March 06, 2013 7:27 am
    Aborting them is more humane.......
  4. Contemptio
    Report Abuse
    Contemptio - March 06, 2013 7:24 am
    The Federally funded school lunch program....Does that ring a bell...
  5. Jeffrey Smith
    Report Abuse
    Jeffrey Smith - March 06, 2013 7:24 am
    I love it - great comments! These kids are the future of our country.Perhaps CGE kids go to private school, where they send home caviar and pate. My neighbors are on food stamps, the kids get subsidize meals, while both of them are out of work. They don't come home every week end with grocery bags. And a call to the school yesterday verifies that at least Quad CIty schools do not send home groceries to students.

  6. Jeffrey Smith
    Report Abuse
    Jeffrey Smith - March 06, 2013 7:20 am
    That's called capitalism, something in your other threads you proclaim to be an advocate of?

    I realize that perhaps thinking is perhaps not your strong suit, but a happy meal is 2.99 to 3.49 per meal, per McDonalds This cost is close to the USDA cost of 2.59 for subsidized and free lunches. That is well under the price of a normal meal at a restaurant. Unhealthy? Yes. Cheaper? No. Figure that the maximum dollar amount per meal (source: usda.gov) is 2.22, while the average under a dollar per meal. To qualify for food stamps, a family of 3 can earn no more than 2069 per month, and have no more than 2000 in personal assets.

    You are blowing so much smoke again.

    Yes, the picture is disgusting.
  7. Jeffrey Smith
    Report Abuse
    Jeffrey Smith - March 06, 2013 6:59 am
    excellent comments, cd1001!
  8. KT
    Report Abuse
    KT - March 06, 2013 6:31 am
    Good rant! You forgot the high fat "chicken" flavored pieces of breading.
  9. Orpheus
    Report Abuse
    Orpheus - March 05, 2013 11:10 pm
    When I speak of a "tax", I don't mean a literal tax... I really just need to stop posting here.. No one understand hyperbole, facsimile, or sarcasm... or civil discord for that matter... Stay classy, Quad Cities. You're literally being swallowed by your own ignorance.
  10. cd1001
    Report Abuse
    cd1001 - March 05, 2013 10:04 pm
    A majority of people getting food stamps DO work, senior. They work at WalMart, which makes sure they don't work more than 29 hours per week so they can't get benefits. They make minimum wage. They might have another very part time job, which also pays minimum wage and gives no benefits. So they get their $900 per month at the most, try to get a place large enough for their families, try to find second hand clothes for their growing kids, try to buy school supplies, try to get a cheap car and insurance, and try to put food on the table. It cannot be done, so they get food stamps. But they work, and they work hard, as much and as often as they can. The deck is stacked against them because WalMart wants to make profit, not pay a living wage.

    You were in a world where there were jobs for everyone who wanted to work -- good jobs, full time, decent pay. So quit complaining and calling people names because the world has changed around you. Or, are you one of those senior citizens who hasn't noticed?
  11. Jeffrey Smith
    Report Abuse
    Jeffrey Smith - March 05, 2013 4:30 pm
    Not even close. Your kid's lunch is still subsidized, even if you pay full price. Your children wouldn't be eating as well as they are now, if everyone paid full price. Proven over and over by the USDA.

    Taxes are mandatory. You don't have to buy your children lunch, Orpheus. It's just something else for you to whine about. Pack a lunch and zip the lip.

    You also better do some research on your schools, to see what percentage are free, what part are subsidized, etc.

    Nope, not a tax, to those of us that know what taxes are, which, apparently you don't know much about.

    You can tell your kids you are making their lunches, and they eat. Go to Scott County Tax assessor, and tell them you aren't paying property taxes. I'm sure they'll let you off.... NOT.
  12. Cry to your momma
    Report Abuse
    Cry to your momma - March 05, 2013 4:24 pm
    What does Obama got to do with school lunches . School lunch be around longer than any of us . Maybe we should blame Bush he loves talking crazy.
  13. senor citizen
    Report Abuse
    senor citizen - March 05, 2013 2:26 pm
    Parents are supposed to have the money. Unfortunately many are professional welfare clients who believe it's the lucky who get jobs. The harder I worked the luckier I got! If you can't make it in the U.S. you can't make it anyplace. Were the nation to eliminate so many of the safety nets maybe people would get the idea that the parasites do not contribute to economy but drag it down. and maybe they would get jobs. Obama simply does not have a clue, and lacks the qualities to be a leader, but the country would probably be better off without a president anyway.
  14. cd1001
    Report Abuse
    cd1001 - March 05, 2013 1:40 pm
    Sarcasm, by the way.
  15. cd1001
    Report Abuse
    cd1001 - March 05, 2013 1:39 pm
    littledog, I was being sarcastic. I think kids should get lunch at school no matter how poor they are.
  16. Cry to your momma
    Report Abuse
    Cry to your momma - March 05, 2013 11:59 am
    Don't blame the kids for not having money to afford there lunch . Everybody in this country won't be lucky to have good job . Don't blame Obama for every problem that existed before he was born . If you can do a better job at being president maybe you should run ..... Oh I forgot not everybody can be president

  17. senor citizen
    Report Abuse
    senor citizen - March 05, 2013 10:54 am
    Disgusting in the photo? How about spending twice or 3 times that amount at a fast food joint? Many folks will do that tonight and send their kids for a school lunch subsidized by the taxpayer tomorrow.
  18. iowalittledog
    Report Abuse
    iowalittledog - March 05, 2013 10:27 am
    CD1001, okay we can do your request, but then lets eliminate bankruptcy. this way if a person gets in debt, then the rest of us won't have to foot the bill. Sometimes people with an education say the most stupid things. Regarding those of you that have money, instead of making comments to attempt to belittle other people so you can look bigger, what you should do is drop to your knees and thank God that you are blessed. bet you can't buy your way into heaven. I refuse to even respond to you stupid fools when you make comments like this. Also didn't you post that you once worked in a school? Did you treat kids who's parents didn't have money different?
  19. pta mom
    Report Abuse
    pta mom - March 05, 2013 10:04 am
    I think current school lunches are not nearly as disgusting as the one depicted in this photo.

    As a VISTA volunteer in the 80's I was paid a poverty-level stipend and thus qualified for food stamps. It is not easy route to good nutrition and a full stomach.

    Those of you that are complaining about subsidizing school lunches are echoing Scrooge from the beginning of A Christmas Carol. May you all be visited by ghosts tonight.
  20. momss
    Report Abuse
    momss - March 05, 2013 9:48 am
    There is NOTHING in the lunch pictured that has any nutritional value ... it is all artificial fillers and flavorings, chemicals, sodium, and most likely MSG. And nasty milk full of hormones and antibiotics and puss. Very disappointing that these "foods" are acceptable to feed our kids. /end rant.
  21. cd1001
    Report Abuse
    cd1001 - March 05, 2013 8:50 am
    What is this? Grocery bags going home on weekends??? Seriously, who really has to eat on weekends? It's a crime, giving food to children living in poverty. It's their fault their parents are poor -- they should have to suffer on weekends when they're just sitting around in some homeless shelter doing nothing with their wee little hands because some communist has decided little kids can't work. Where is the Tea Party when we need them???
  22. cd1001
    Report Abuse
    cd1001 - March 05, 2013 8:30 am
    I think little kids living in poverty should starve, rather than eating lunch at school. Let the little buggers waste away, slowly and painfully. Eventually they'll die, and we who have money won't have to pay for their darn lunches any more.
  23. CGE
    Report Abuse
    CGE - March 05, 2013 8:27 am
    The cost does not really matter because a very large percentage of students get 'free' lunches at public schools in this area. So yes, the few that are paying for it can consider it a tax, subsidy, whatever... and the USDA subsidies aren't free, they are coming out of our (those who work for a living) pay checks.
    Oh and don't forget the grocery bags that go home on weekends - more free handouts. We are giving no incentives to work anymore. Free food, free cell phones, food stamps, and rampant crime with declining education. I wonder who voted in this guy? { sarcasm }
  24. Orpheus
    Report Abuse
    Orpheus - March 05, 2013 8:13 am
    Simply put, "lazy parents" that pay full price "have a job" and don't qualify economically for discount or free lunches. The poor receive free lunches, so they do not feel any impact, same as the "rich". So, yes, the "healthy school lunch initiative" is absolutely yet ANOTHER "middle class tax" where the cost gets passed on directly to us, as is CLEARLY demonstrated in the article.
  25. Jeffrey Smith
    Report Abuse
    Jeffrey Smith - March 05, 2013 7:36 am
    Nope, not at all. Pack your kids a lunch and quit whining. It doesn't directly cost you anything, unless you are a lazy parent paying full price.
  26. Jeffrey Smith
    Report Abuse
    Jeffrey Smith - March 05, 2013 7:36 am
    It's the other way around. The USDA subsidizes free/reduced, and they buy large enough quantities to offset the prices of the food. Those that get full price are also getting subsidized - they don't serve different foods for pay/reduced/free.
  27. Aberline
    Report Abuse
    Aberline - March 05, 2013 7:28 am
    Yes, I agree. Why is it parents get food stamps AND free lunch for their kids? Should be one or the other.
  28. Indigo_Mama
    Report Abuse
    Indigo_Mama - March 05, 2013 7:18 am
    Aww, Orpheus, you beat me to it...
  29. Orpheus
    Report Abuse
    Orpheus - March 05, 2013 7:14 am
    Where is "Davenpot"??
  30. Orpheus
    Report Abuse
    Orpheus - March 05, 2013 7:13 am
    Yet ANOTHER example of how a larger, involved government DIRECTLY costs us money. THIS is nothing more than tax on the middle class.
  31. Roman
    Report Abuse
    Roman - March 05, 2013 7:05 am
    Whoever titled this article never read it. It says the increase is a federal mandate.... Not an option to increase. The only option is by how much.
  32. Roman
    Report Abuse
    Roman - March 05, 2013 7:03 am
    Another Obama tax on the middle class.

    More school lunch regulations are entering the comment period.

    Have enough change yet? If you have any change left, obama is coming after it.
  33. Badgerbacker
    Report Abuse
    Badgerbacker - March 05, 2013 6:41 am
    They have to raise the price to help subsidize those who get it for free.
  34. JS824
    Report Abuse
    JS824 - March 05, 2013 1:41 am
    Looks better than what we ate for hot lunch in school. I remember the old rectangle pieces of pizza, and the hard yellow burritos with the mystery meat inside.
  35. pta mom
    Report Abuse
    pta mom - March 04, 2013 10:12 pm
    That's a pretty nasty-looking lunch pictured.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Follow the Quad-City Times

Activate subscription button gif

Deals, Offers and Events

Local Businesses