By Erica C. Barnett
When I spoke to Mayor Katie Wilson on Tuesday, one of the key accomplishments she name-checked was her proposal to provide universal free meals for all students at Seattle Public Schools, which she announced—alongside SPS superintendent Ben Shuldiner—two months ago. Part of Wilson’s Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise (FEPP) levy implementation plan, the program would cost about $3 million a year and would eliminate the stigma of the current free-meal program while establishing food as a basic right for Seattle schoolchildren. (Voters passed the FEPP levy last year.)
Later that same day, City Council President Joy Hollingsworth threw this achievement into question, proposing an amendment (co-sponsored by Councilmember Dionne Foster) that would eliminate funding for free school breakfasts and lunches for at least the first year of the levy to fund a new, means-tested vouchers for low-income kids to get meals during holiday breaks during the school year and on weekends. That program would cost $500,000 year, funded by spreading the $3 million one-year cost for universal meals over the six-year levy term.
Like Wilson’s original plan, Hollingsworth’s proposal assumes the statewide millionaire’s tax will pay for universal school meals after the 2027-2028 school year.
In a statement to PubliCola, Wilson said, “I included universal school meals as a core priority in the FEPP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan because no child should be expected to learn while hungry. This is a basic human need that reflects a core value of the people in this city. K-12 education is free and universal and the basic nutrition you need to be ready to learn should be free and universal too.
“We estimate that families will save roughly $1,200 per year through this program,” Wilson continued. “Students and families at schools that don’t currently offer universal school meals are counting on us to deliver this for them this school year.”
At a FEPP Committee meeting on Wednesday, Hollingsworth said her amendment was a matter of racial justice for Southeast Seattle, where food insecurity is highest in the city and where there is only one food bank that receives state and federal funding for emergency food assistance.
“I wanted to put this out here for conversation, for us to have a really, really intentional conversation about equity,” Hollingsworth said.
Foster, likewise, argued that feeding the poorest kids should take priority over providing meals to all kids, including those who wouldn’t qualify for free or reduced-price meals under the current means-tested program.
“I am so committed to making sure that our kids, our babies, our students aren’t going hungry in our city, and I think what we are trying to put forward in this amendment is a question and conversation about what is the right way to approach that,” Foster added.
“It’s not about the concept of gutting universal free school lunch. It’s about, we have low-income kids, kids who are qualified for free and reduced lunch … who are also going hungry during school breaks, during week during weekends.”
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
Public commenters who spoke to the amendment were overwhelmingly opposed to the tradeoff Hollingsworth and Foster are proposing, arguing that requiring parents to prove they’re poor enough to qualify for food vouchers would perpetuate the stigma that surrounds poverty. The voucher proposal, several noted, would exclude kids whose families are just above the income cutoff—less than $60,000 for a family of four—and those who don’t fill out the paperwork to prove they qualify.
“Even if all students who qualify were to apply and use the program, a family of four or two adults are working full time, making just minimum wage would not qualify for free or reduced lunch,” said Hanan Sherka, a youth and community organizing coordinator at the food-justice nonprofit FEEST. Quoting a student at Chief Sealth High School, Sherka continued, “‘Need is defined very narrowly, and universal school lunch would unburden many families who don’t qualify, but are still struggling financially in the current economic climate.'”
Lilliane Ballesteros, the executive director of Latino Community Fund of Washington State, told the council that means-tested programs create barriers to participation, and “we see that when barriers are set up, families suffer. When families face administrative barriers, they do not access the food and resources they need, and students do not thrive.”
Wednesday’s meeting was the first opportunity for councilmembers to explain their proposed changes to Wilson’s proposed implementation plan; the 11 council amendments just became public late Tuesday afternoon.
Rob Saka was the only councilmember to sound a note of alarm about the food-voucher proposal. Saka said that while what Hollingsworth and Foster are ” trying to do here is is expand the pie … I’m just concerned about the potential delay [to universal meals], and what that portends for affordability, what that portends for stigma, social stigma for students, [and] what that portends for the long-term educational readiness of our future workforce.”
