PRINT ADS

Students can expect to pay more for meals at local school districts, but while costs go up for school districts, government reimbursements are not keeping pace.

That was Katie Wilson’s message to congressional representatives in Washington last week.

“Overall food prices are expected to rise as much as 5.5 percent this year,” Wilson told congressional leaders at a hearing in Washington, D.C.

Wilson is the director of school nutrition for the Onalaska School District. She is also president-elect of the School Nutrition Association, a national organization with 55,000 members responsible for serving meals to 30 million students every day; Wilson will be installed as president on July 23.

On July 9, Wilson spoke at a House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee hearing convened by Chairman George Miller, D-Calif. The purpose of the hearing was to collect testimony about the impact of rising food prices on child nutrition programs.

Wilson told them the very things required by unfunded government mandates are becoming the most costly items for schools to provide.

“We can no longer work the magic: You can only stretch the food dollar so far,” Wilson said. “Meeting the Dietary Guidelines for Americans requirements has been difficult due to lack of funding to purchase fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains that we are expected to serve.”

The government mandated this dietary change for schools in 2004 yet did not provide any funding.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture just raised the reimbursement rate to schools 10 cents to $2.57, a 4-percent increase. However, costs are expected to increase at least 5.5 percent, according to Wilson.

“Costs for many school districts to prepare meals are well over $3.

According to Wilson, in a 2007 SNA survey, 75 percent of respondents said they were being forced to raise rates for full price meals.

“It’s a real spiral right now,” said Bangor School District Superintendent Roger Foegen. “I anticipate raising prices, but whatever we raise, it to isn’t going to cover increase in costs. We’ll be looking at raising prices at the next board meeting.”

Besides the rising costs of food, several other factors are compounding problems for nutrition departments across the country, according to Wilson. To combat rising fuel prices, more school administrators are charging the food service programs for indirect expenses, such as utilities, water and trash removal. According to an SNA survey, almost 47 percent of programs saw an increase in indirect costs in 2007.

Another problem faced by school districts is the cost of fuel for transporting food. Wilson also said this is the first year she has seen fuel surcharges on the invoices.

“I’ve been in this business 20 years and this is the first time I’ve seen escalator clauses,” she said.

Other factors include labor costs and mandated health benefits; the 2008 beef recall and tomato scare is still having an effect; and the lack of a uniform national standard for dietary guidelines is increasing the cost of meal programs.

“The multiplicity of different state and local nutrition standards is driving up the cost of producing food products and this increase is being passed on to the local school food programs,” Wilson said.

As an example, she said one school district might order two-ounce bags of Teddy Grahams while another district wants three-ounce bags or any one of five different sizes.

A major problem is the perception by the public that school meals should be cheap.

“There is a mentality that food should be cheap,” Wilson said. “But I can’t buy in the volume McDonald’s can. I have only 2,000 kids. McDonald’s can get national contracts; I can’t.”

The other side of school meals is while many — especially students — think it should be cheap, others think that schools can’t serve up a nutritious meal for $1.25 for breakfast or $2.25 for lunch.

Wilson said Congress’ answer so far has been for schools to raise the price for full-pay students.

“That sounds like a great idea, but it’s not good for our families. They are the ones who have to go through every day asking, ‘Do I put gas in my car or food on the table?’”

She said that only creates more kids becoming eligible for the free meal programs.

Foegen agreed, saying, “It’s a balancing act, families are hurting too. Nutrition is important in a learning environment. We don’t want to force people to not use the hot lunch program.”

While Wilson said she was honored to be speaking at the hearing, she was there with a passion.

“It was an honor to be part of the process,” she said. “I was there with a lot of passion. I am frustrated. We’ve talked this to death. It’s time to do something.”

She said one aspect that frustrates her is that “in No Child Left Behind, nutrition gets left behind. That’s because kids don’t get tested on nutrition. If you’re not getting tested on it, there’s no money to the schools.”

Another source of frustration Wilson cites is getting asked by congressional members ‘Why should I give you more money when anytime I go to a school, the kids are eating pizza?’

“We have to explain that portions have been controlled for the last 50 years. One piece of pizza is two ounces of meat or meat alternate, a half cup of fruit and a quarter cup of vegetables. That child is getting only one slice of pizza but also fruit and vegetable.”

Wilson said the food served in schools is nothing like fast food service or what can be purchased at a grocery store.

“Our hot dogs can only have seven grams of fat. Go to a grocery store and a hot dog has 16 grams of fat,” Wilson said.

“Onalaska wants kids to have access to fresh fruits and vegetables.” Wilson continued. “The school meals is one of the few programs where the benefactor actually gets to enjoy the benefit. When a student sits down with a meal, that student consumes it. It can’t be taken away from them.”