Changes to the Cherry Hill School District’s unpaid meals policy are coming, though what exactly those changes will be remains unclear as the board of education only discussed a draft policy in broad terms at its meeting last Tuesday.
The policy has been a lightning rod of controversy with the district coming under fire for the current iteration. As it stands, the district has a policy wherein, at $10, students are served an alternative meal, which includes a tunafish sandwich on wheat bread, milk or juice and a choice of fruits and vegetables, and the district is supposed to stop serving students after they exceed a $20 threshold in unpaid lunch fees.
The district said, to date, it has never cut off a student who could not pay, but the board has felt the heat following a suggestion from the district’s business office that it begin implementing the policy. At the end of the 2018-2019 year, the district had 1,723 delinquent accounts. Of those, 1,380 were under $10, but the remaining 343 accounts exceeded $10 and amounted to $14,383 in delinquent accounts.
Justin Smith, assistant superintendent, brought a handful of policies up for discussion at Tuesday night’s meeting. While draft policies are not released to the public, board members did comment on the changes, praising the work that had been done.
“For me, it hit on all of the items that were of concern for me as of last meeting,” said Board Vice President Lisa Saidel.
Saidel said the policy changes the dollar thresholds (though she did not say to what). She also commented that the draft policy eliminates the substitute tuna fish meal and allows students to receive the meal of the day, which she said helps eliminate a stigma. She said the policy also restricts the purchase of a la carte items once a student is in arrears with their account.
Board member Jane Scarpellino said the draft policy states that if student debts remain unpaid the consequences will be dictated by Policy 5513: care of school property – a policy that is also undergoing revisions to be presented at the next board meeting. As it stands, the policy can fine parents for damage to school property and “reserves the right to withhold a report card or diploma from any pupil whose payment of a fine is arrears.” Board members also mentioned the consequences could include students being prohibited from school activities until their accounts are addressed, but failed to detail what activities would be included in these consequences. Scarpellino said these consequences could motivate people with means to pay to take action.
“People who can’t pay are different, but people who can – if they know it’s going to impact their children’s activities, they might be more inclined to not let it get to that point,” Scarpellino said.
Board President Eric Goodwin said he also thought combining the two policies marked a positive change.
“So I think this strikes a balance of compassion at the same time making sure we’re holding people accountable where they need to be held accountable,” Goodwin said.
Superintendent Joe Meloche said there will be letters sent home, phone calls, follow-ups from the building principal and in-person meetings (if need be) to make every effort to alert parents that their accounts are in arrears. He said, as always, the district has room for compassion and is willing to work with parents who may not be able to pay in full all at once.
“All of it is about establishing and nurturing and building those relationships between the school building, the folks in the school and the families that are there,” Meloche said.
The new policies will be finalized and released to the public on Friday, Sept. 20 when the board posts its agenda. Both policies will be up for first reading at the board’s Sept. 24 meeting.
