Colorado voters to decide fate of universal school meals program through Propositions LL, MM

This November, Colorado must decide whether to continue universal school breakfasts and lunches in a program that has lost money since its inception in 2022.

“Propositions LL and MM ask voters to let the state keep and raise more money for a program they approved four years ago — by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Coloradans,” writes Jenny Brundin for CPR News.

“Supporters say the tax targeting higher-income earners pays for an essential and popular program that has yielded benefits inside the classroom and to all Colorado families. Opponents say it’s an example of government overreach and one that voters need to weigh against other state priorities during a budget crunch.”

History of Proposition FF: ‘Healthy Meals For All’

As previously reported by The Lion, the “Healthy School Meals for All” program, or Proposition FF, had already drawn criticism even before it was passed by 57% of state voters. 

“Because free-meal eligibility is currently restricted to low-income families, most of the kids who will qualify for free meals upon Proposition FF will be from middle- and upper-income families,” the Common Sense Institute had warned in a September 2022 analysis. 

Furthermore, the program was likely to generate a deficit, contribute to higher school costs and encourage food waste, according to the institute. 

CPR acknowledges many of these predictions happened during the program’s four-year history in its report. 

“The program raised even more than the $100 million it was allowed in the ballot measure. But by the second year, it had a $50 million budget gap,” Brundin writes. 

“Two components of the program, a raise for cafeteria workers and money for schools to buy from local farmers, never went into effect. Farmers were upset because they’d already planted crops to sell to schools. Some were planning to build greenhouses.” 

However, the left-leaning media outlet praised the school meals as “a hit” for students in general, with 100,000 more children eating lunch and 50,000 more eating breakfast since the measure passed. 

“The goal wasn’t just to eliminate hunger,” Brundin argues. “Those who spearheaded the measure — parents, anti-hunger advocates, teachers and others — said making school meals free for everyone takes away the stigma about the lunch line. They didn’t want kids to feel embarrassed or singled out for getting a free lunch — or — falling behind on payments.” 

‘Not the job of the state to feed your kids’ 

While Propositions LL and MM do not face any “organized opposition,” CPR noted almost all Colorado’s Republican lawmakers voted against adding them to this year’s election. 

“Republicans said they agree that kids who need food should get it,” Brundin writes. “But they were skeptical that meals should be free for all such as wealthy Colorado families.” 

Brundin also quoted Boulder resident Erin Meshchke, who testified to lawmakers against the measure. 

“It’s not the job of the state to feed your kids,” she argued at the state capitol. “It’s your job.” 

Other parent advocates in different states agree with Meshchke. 

“Most families send their kids to school either with or without lunches without much discussion these days,” explained Lance Christensen, vice president of the California Policy Center, of the state’s universal meals programs. 

“It’s a weird conversation every day with the kids. It’s like, ‘Are you going to eat school lunch or not?’ as opposed to spending time debating sack lunches versus lunch money.” 

Christensen believes this functions as “in loco parentis” – people or organizations taking on parental functions and duties. 

“California schools are not doing the thing they were supposed to do, which is teach kids. They now have become basically warehouses for young kids – and childcare centers for most families – incidentally teaching academics from time to time.” 

In addition to wasting resources on pre-purchasing perishable food – which children may or may not eat – such programs encourage more dependence on government instead of family, according to Christensen. 

“It’s pretty insidious because what it’s actually doing is dividing the parents and their parental duties – their rights and responsibilities – from their kids and giving it to the schools.” 

In Detroit, mom and homeschool advocate Bernita Bradley also criticized her daughter’s former public school for emphasizing food over academics. 

“We’ve seen that happen during the pandemic where a lot of schools were saying, especially in Detroit, ‘Oh, let’s feed children, let’s get them food,’” she said. 

“But there was no education happening, and parents were saying, ‘Look, I can feed my child. I need you to jump on a class with my child and make sure my child is actually learning.’” 

‘Kids go in and punch in a seven-digit code’ 

Republican lawmakers also took issue with the argument about free school meals reducing a social stigma among children, Brundin wrote. 

“Kids go in and punch in a seven-digit code,” Rep. Brandi Bradley said. “It doesn’t flash up, ‘Poor, poor, poor child needs to be fed by the government.’ It just, they just go through. It’s a great system.” 

Program critics also emphasize the consequences of food waste, which the World Wildlife Fund estimated at 530,000 tons each year – costing U.S. taxpayers an estimated $9.7 million each day. 

“(This) breaks down to about 39.2 pounds of food waste and 19.4 gallons of milk thrown out per school per year, based on the results from the 46-school sample across nine cities,” the fund’s report explained. 

Costs also accrue in hiring and paying school personnel to make the meals, as opposed to homemade ones. 

For example, one study in 2020 found homemade lunches cost a median of $1.55 to make, compared to more than $2 for school ones. 

CPR also acknowledged the higher costs of “hiring and retaining experienced cafeteria workers” for school meals, noting they can earn $22-23 an hour as opposed to parents making lunches without charge. 

“We’re asking them to do more, to feed more meals, to do more intensive types of prep work,” Anya Rose with Hunger Free Colorado told the news outlet. 

If passed, Proposition LL would allow the state to keep about $12 million more from higher-income earners beyond its original estimate under Proposition FF, CPR explained. 

Meanwhile, Proposition MM would fund the program by an additional $95 million if passed, costing “Coloradans earning $300,000 or more” an extra $480 each year. 

Some legislative officials took issue with the program as the state continues to wrestle with budgetary woes. 

“We’re supposed to be finding cuts,” said Rep. Ken DeGraaf of Colorado Springs, “not just additional spending.”