Still alive, and on the way to the Governor’s desk, is Senator Roem’s bill to have student unpaid school lunch debts forgiven (and paid for by local school systems, aka, local taxpayers). This bill, while less objectionable than the others, is a camel’s nose under the tent to broader school meal programs and should be vetoed by Governor Youngkin.

To be clear, Senator Roem is right on the importance of food for improved health and academics. The failed bills, however, replace important parental roles, increase “food deserts,” and contribute to government dependence. The school debt bill creates a moral hazard that will undermine existing lunch programs and divert funds from educational purposes.

The daily ritual of packing a school lunch, a mundane and inexpensive task, holds a wealth of benefits for both children and parents. While the convenience of a school’s hot lunch program is undeniable, the non-dietary benefits of a packed lunch are both great and rarely discussed.

Beyond the benefits of packing a healthier meal that matches a child’s food preferences, preparing lunches offers a unique opportunity for parents to connect with their children on a deeper level. Parents can include handwritten notes, a favorite snack, or even a small surprise to brighten their child’s day. This personalized touch reinforces the parent-child bond and demonstrates that the child is valued and thought of, even during the school day.

As a former principal, I have seen first hand the joy of a child reading a note from a parent, sharing a special way a parent cuts their sandwich or vegetables, or the inclusion of a special “favorite” treat. This simple act of love strengthens the bond between parents and their children.

Even more important than a parent packed lunch is a parent shared breakfast. Yes, the morning scramble before school is total chaos due to the flurry of packing lunches, finding lost shoes, and ensuring homework makes it into backpacks. This can make sharing breakfast difficult. However, the importance of parents eating breakfast with their children before school extends far beyond mere sustenance or improved academic performance. Shared parent-child breakfasts also benefit the emotional well-being of children.

When parents join their children for breakfast, they are creating a supportive and encouraging environment that sets the stage for a successful day of learning. Sharing breakfast provides a valuable opportunity for parents to connect with their children on a personal level. The breakfast table offers an informal setting for parents to engage with their children, listen to their thoughts and feelings, and provide guidance and support (especially if both put their cell phones down and turn off their TV, a topic for another day).

The psychosocial benefits of eating with one’s children is well established. This study found that family meals are associated with multiple positive outcomes, such as higher self-esteem, better academic performance, and reduced risk of substance abuse and depression. Shared breakfast can also create a sense of routine, stability and structure, all critical to a child’s development. A good routine helps reduce morning stress and create a calmer, more peaceful atmosphere in the home.

In short, school meals can’t compete with parent packed lunches or parent shared breakfast.

The ultimate paradox of Senator Roem’s efforts to expand school meal programs, however, is that it inadvertently contributes to the creation of food deserts (more politically referred to as “food apartheid zones” by progressives in the General Assembly).

Schools offering free and reduced priced meals often become the primary source of meals for children in impoverished areas. This concentration of demand can discourage the development of accessible grocery options in the surrounding neighborhood. For instance, if a significant portion of a community’s food needs are met within the school system, there is less economic incentive for supermarkets or other food retailers to establish a presence.

The logistics of food procurement for school meal programs also play a role. Schools often contract with large food service providers that prioritize cost-effectiveness over purchasing food locally. This further discourages grocery stores and other food options from being developed within the community.

As food options diminish in the community as schools monopolize food distribution, political pressure increases to double down on school meals — leading to school breakfast, expanded school lunch, after-school heavy snacks, and summer meal offerings. The cycle then continues.

The school lunch debt forgiveness bill that is still alive and headed to the Governor’s desk only directs local school districts to forgive unpaid school lunch debts — a far less onerous piece of legislation, but equally deserving of a veto.

While forgiving lunch debt appears to offer immediate relief to those in need, it can inadvertently contribute to a larger debt burden in subsequent years and drive more parents to take advantage of the school lunch program knowing their cost will be forgiven. This will shift parental responsibility, erode financial accountability, and create a system that, while well-intentioned, may perpetuate rather than solve the targeted problem and deny students of the benefits of their parent’s involvement.

In essence, the act of forgiveness, while compassionate, might inadvertently incentivize future non-payment and program growth. Studies show that student lunch debts are growing dramatically — which aligns with the growth of debt forgiveness programs.

School meals, whether breakfast, lunch, or after school snacks, remove parental responsibility from those who know their children best. Low-income parents are provided subsidies for food and it would be better to increase this subsidy than to have their responsibility socialized and their children miss out on the health, psychosocial and other benefits of feeding their own children.

Any proposal that reduces parental responsibility unnecessarily should be rejected.