Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.

School Committee examines lunch policies

Date: 7/5/2011

July 6, 2011

By Debbie Gardner

Assistant Editor

WEST SPRINGFIELD — High school seniors will have to stay on campus during lunch break next year, and everyone will be paying more to eat in the cafeteria — though the West Springfield School Committee couldn’t reach a consensus on how much more during its June 29 meeting.

The lunch break policy change came as part of a series of updates to the high school’s student handbook, presented to the committee for approval by West Springfield High School (WSHS) Principal Michael Richard. Proposed changes to the price of elementary and high school lunches were brought before the committee by West Springfield Public Schools Business Manager Carey Sheehan and Food Service Director Dario Nardi as part of required compliance with the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) reimbursement policy and the federal Healthy Hungry Kids Act of 2010.

Richard explained that the proposed changes to the student handbook were designed to make the document more user friendly, eliminate redundancies and make it easier for parents and students to find necessary information. The changes also reflect several policy updates, including changing the former automatic “F” to a “0” — and having that “0” count for 20 percent of a student’s final grade — for anyone who misses a mid-term or final exam, and instituting in-house supervised detention in place of out-of-school suspension for students who commit serious offenses.

Richard explained that the “F” policy — which could cost a student course credit for one skipped exam, did not align with the high school’s policy of assisting students to attain graduation. He said the in-house detention idea was popular with teachers because it would ensure that suspended students worked on homework assignments.

“Many students see [suspensions] as vacation days,” Richard noted.

Other changes included a proactive approach to ensuring all high school students wear their I.D. badges daily — by supplying temporary I.D. without an initial penalty to students missing their badges; adjusting the Renaissance programs exam policy; revoking the privilege of lobby cell phone use during lunch, thus making the school’s no cell phone policy consistent and easier to enforce; removing policy language from the course catalog; inserting the district’s updated bullying policy and making the number of credits necessary for graduation consistent throughout the handbook.

Richard thanked School Committee Member Nancy Farrell for bringing the graduation requirement inconsistency — it was originally listed at 110, 115, 120 and 115 credits at different places in the handbook — to the school’s attention. He said that he and West Springfield School Superintendent Dr. Russell Johnston had discussed “what it means to get a diploma from WSHS” in depth during the course of the past school year, and were proposing that the graduation credit requirement be set at 110 credits for the incoming freshman class of 2015.

“One hundred ten credits will give a lot of students the ability to graduate,” Richard said. “We would have been able to save six students [from failing to graduate] this year if we had the 110 credit [policy].”

Of these updates, the proposed elimination of the senior privilege to leave campus during lunch break was the only change that drew significant discussion.

School Committee Vice Chairman Daniel Sullivan, whose own son had made extensive use of that very popular privilege during his senior year at WSHS, asked if the administration was ‘opening a can of worms” by proposing that policy change.

“On Sept. 1, you may get a lot of phone calls. Do you want to give [students and parents] some notice?” Sullivan asked.

Richard said the school newspaper, the Terrier Times, had requested an interview about the subject prior to the end of school, but he had refused because he didn’t want to “stir the pot” before the change was approved by the School Committee.

School Committee Member Pat Garbacik said she supported the change, especially because the high school is located in a suburban setting, and the lunch break is only 30 minutes.

“They can’t just go down the street to McDonald’s or Wendy’s,” Garbacik said. “They have to drive.” She added she was concerned about students speeding as they try to leave and return in the allotted time.

Sullivan asked if there had been any reported lunchtime accidents among seniors during the past school year.

Richard said there were two minor “fender-benders,” but it was not so much the driving, but the inability of administration to know the whereabouts of students at lunch should an emergency occur at the school, that was behind the proposed change.

Johnston said the daily “flood of 25 to 50 kids coming and going [at lunch] without knowing who is there and who is returning” was a safety and security issue for the school. He also noted that there had been instances where “people who looked like students” entered the building during the lunch influx, and on-campus fights had occurred.

He added that the juniors on his high school Student Advisory Council had “seen this change coming,” and he felt it would be easy for the school to call a forum and discuss the reasons behind the change with students and parents.

The School Committee voted 4 to 2 to accept the high school handbook changes, including the senior lunch privilege change.

On the school lunch price issue, Sheehan explained to the committee that, pursuit to a memo the School Department had received from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the district is required to begin raising its school lunch prices on an annual basis until the cost it charges students is closer to the federal reimbursement for students enrolled for the NSLP free and reduced school lunches.

He said the federal reimbursement is $2.46 per lunch. West Springfield currently charges students $1.75 at the elementary level and $2 at the middle and high school level for the daily lunch in its cafeterias.

His proposal requested an increase of 10 cents, boosting lunch prices fro the 2011-12 school year to $1.85 and $2.10 respectively.

Nardi said the nutrition requirements put into effect by the Healthy Hungry Act also require that he purchase foods that are more costly. He said much of the federal commodity allotment previously used to supplement school lunch programs no longer fits the strict guidelines on saturated fats and sugar, and to comply with the increased whole grain and fruit requirements, he must buy whole grain rolls at 15 cents each, as opposed to six-cent white rolls, and that canned peaches must now be replaced by fresh peaches and plums at a cost of 26 cents per piece. He also said the government’s whole grain pastas are “too dark brown” to prepare student favorites such as macaroni and cheese, forcing him to buy more expensive whole grain pastas to remain in compliance with the new statues.

Sullivan said the School Committee’s budget committee had suggested that, instead of raising lunch prices 10 cents, the prices be increased by 25 cents, to $2 and $2.25.

Mayor and School Committee Chairman Edward Gibson asked Sheehan if the School Department had a total breakdown of how much it cost to serve a school lunch, “including all costs–salary, tables, equipment, etc., in addition to food.” He said seeing those numbers might help the committee arrive at a more accurate price point for school lunches.

Sheehan said not all costs were factored into lunch pricing, as cafeteria equipment is purchased out of the School Department operating account, and the town paid cafeteria employee benefits.

Gibson said he was “not inclined to vote [for either price hike] until we know where we are in terms of what the lunch fee covers.”

Johnston said he was concerned about raising the lunch prices too quickly, and the effect that might have on parents who do not qualify for free or reduced lunches, but are still living on tight budgets.

The School Committee voted on both proposals. The motion to increase school lunch prices by 25 cents to $2 and $2.25 failed by a vote of 3- 3. The motion to increase prices by 10 cents to $1.85 and $2 failed by a vote of 2 - 4.

Gibson said that, as both votes had failed, he was requesting a full cost evaluation before the committee took up the issue again.

“If we know the lunch really costs $3 to produce, then we can make an educated decision on what we want to do,” Gibson said.

Nardi said he would like to see a decision on the new lunch prices before Aug. 1, so he could get the information out to parents by the connected system and on the school Web site in preparation for the new school year.

The School Committee expects to take up the issue again at its July 12 meeting.



Bookmark and Share