Don't get overly concerned about a report released this week on breakfasts in Utah schools.
Utahns Against Hunger, an advocacy group, gave the state a C grade overall because only 52 percent of its schools serve food in the morning. Unfortunately, the percentage and the letter grade are a non sequitur.The number of schools offering breakfast has little to do with whether the needs of hungry children are being met. In many cases, schools are choosing books over eggs, simply because no one is eating. Contrary to the report's inference, the evidence tends to show that Utah schools are doing a fairly good job providing breakfasts in areas that have a general need.
Naturally, Utahns Against Hunger would like each school to offer breakfast regardless of whether students eat them. That's a worthy goal. In an ideal world, food should always be available for hungry children.
However, economic realities get in the way in the real world.
A breakfast program requires salaried workers. While federal funds are available, they are parceled according to the number of students who use the program. In the Jordan District, for example, officials estimate each school needs about 70 participants in order to attract the federal funding necessary to cover all expenses.
But many schools in that district have trouble finding even five students who need breakfast. Last year, some schools were offering students leftover breakfast food at lunch. Meanwhile, resources needed for academic pursuits were used to cook sausages and pancakes that ended up in Dumpsters.
That's hardly a wise use of money. The district, realizing this, has discontinued the program in all but 18 percent of its schools. Unfortunately, that was bad enough to garner an F on the report.
An F, in the traditional academic sense, stands for failure. Certainly, small numbers of children in the Jordan District may be going hungry each morning, but the district is hardly failing in its responsibilities.
The report handed out failing grades to eight districts. Virtually all of them represent areas with high average incomes. Not surprisingly, the districts that received an A or A+ cover areas with high poverty rates.
A report that showed the opposite would indeed be cause for alarm, but Utahns Against Hunger has done little more than release a report showing a system that seems to be working well. The decision to use academic-type grades was an unfortunate one.
People in charge of the advocacy group are not irresponsible. They acknowledge the report is something less than an absolute evaluation. They agree valid reasons exist for not supplying breakfasts in some schools. They also are worried Congress is about to make decisions that would wipe out money for breakfast and other nutritional programs.
They are right to be worried. Needy children should be fed breakfasts. Without a full stomach, children become inattentive and their ability to learn is diminished.
But a study that measured whether Utah schools truly were meeting the needs of hungry children would have served the group's purposes better.