Darren72 wrote:

Mhays wrote:This is an interesting strategy - essentially it would undercut the current system that depends on the full-price kids to make the finances work (a driver of the food choices: they are designed to appeal to the kids who pay full-price in order to be financially sustainable. Since parents don't typically make the choices at school, sugary, salty, fatty foods "hook" more full-price kids.)

Emphasis is mine

There's no particular reason why a particular school's lunch system has to have a balanced budget/be financially sustainable. Are the art class or the math class financially sustainable?

I completely agree with you, but your point depends on the idea that feeding students lunch is as much the mission of the public school as teaching art or math. There are plenty of people (just check the nasty comment on the Trib website following the article I linked to above) who think providing lunch is exclusively a parental responsibility, whether the parents are capable of assuming that responsibility or not. If the district can say the meals program is a wash financially, presumably it garners more support. Again, I fully support subsidizing healthy meals for schoolchildren as part of the mission of a school district that serves children who need affordable and nutritious food.