Volume 15 Number 2
January 1976

Moses Lukaczer

THE informational backup for this article stems from a visit the author made to New Mexico in May 1972 on behalf of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a subsequent limited updating of the information obtained at that time. The purpose of the visit was to observe the operation of the School Breakfast program (as well as the National School Lunch program) at the elementary and secondary school levels, and focusing on the American Indian school child.

In addition to interviewing state officials in the Department of Education at Santa Fe and federal officials in the area office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at Albuquerque, 12 school districts in northern and north central New Mexico were visited. The districts contacted were chosen on the basis that American Indian children were in their school populations. Interviews were held with the district superintendent and the principals of a number of schools as well as with staff. The information gathered at that time has been updated, to a limited extent. The totality of the information forms the basis for the analysis that follows.

The School Breakfast program assists states with grants in aid to provide nonprofit breakfast programs in public schools and in nonprofit private schools. The Department of Agriculture itself administers the program in nonprofit private schools in those instances where the state educational agency, which has the responsibility for administering the program for public schools, is not permitted by state law to disburse federal funds to private schools for the purpose.

In earlier years, in selecting schools for the program, the emphasis was on the presence of the needy child or on children traveling long distances to school. This emphasis has become more diffused in the past few years.

More recently, the regulations were changed to provide that the state educational agency shall approve for participation any school making application and agreeing to carry out the program in accordance with standards prescribed by the Department of Agriculture.

A little over two years later, in July 1974, the number of participating public schools in the state had risen by only 13 to 106. Of the 526 nonparticipating schools, it is estimated that no less than 87 should be participating because they are in "critical need" as the term is defined above.

The clearly unsatisfactory situation outlined above invites the conclusion that the American Indian school child (in fact, all New Mexico school children, of whatever ethnic stock) generally does not have access to the School Breakfast program because in so many schools the program is not being offered. That is to say, the governing body of most school districts has precluded access by their decision not to provide the program. Furthermore, even where the governing body has approved the program, participation has been held open narrowly for a few schools in the system rather than for all schools. Therefore, the benefits the Congress of the United States intended should be available to the American Indian public school child (and other New Mexico children) by passage of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 as amended, are not available, in fact.

The argument might be made, with specific reference to the American Indian school child, however, that his or her needs might be met adequately, nonetheless, because these children might happen to attend schools that participate in this program. This matter was carefully investigated by the author with respect to 12 school districts, many of which have sizeable contingents of American Indian children. The conclusion was found to be untenable; a substantial number of American Indian school children are enrolled in schools that are not participating in the program. This finding is clearly brought out from a review of the school districts visited.

In the case of one school district, the superintendent’s recommendation to reject the School Breakfast program and the board’s acceptance, appeared to be determined by their negative attitude toward the poor and toward people receiving public welfare.

The governing board of the district was asked in 1970 by officials in the State Department of Education to introduce or consider introducing the School Breakfast program. The board requested its superintendent to provide a recommendation. The recommendation was negative, which the board voted to accept unanimously. The reason given by the superintendent for his negative recommendation was that parents still have a duty to provide breakfast for their children. He stated that this was also the reason the board went along with his recommendation and rejected an affirmative and positive response. In outlining his attitude, the superintendent stated that breakfast is not an essential part of education. He referred to a survey that had been made in the school district to throw light on the need for a School Breakfast program, whose findings, he believed, apparently, supported his recommendation and the action taken by the board. The survey showed that a good proportion of the secondary school students did not eat breakfast because they did not want to. A good proportion of the elementary school children did eat breakfast. Some of those who did not, said that their mothers didn’t want to prepare the breakfast, and told them to get on to school. The survey indicated that while elementary school students would accept a free meal, an increased number of secondary students would not.

The superintendent stated that he was not very strong for the National School Lunch program either, in which, however, all schools in the district were participating. He delivered himself of some remarks about families whose children were getting a free lunch, which appeared to underlie his attitude toward the program. A large proportion of the parents of these children, he said, were not making an adequate effort to pay their own way. A large proportion of the free lunchers were from broken families headed by the mother only. Though ostensibly the father was away from home, he might live in or at least visit the home, in fact. There are, the superintendent said, second and third generation welfare recipients whose children receive free lunches. He does not see why parents should be helped, who go on a "tear," who do not take care of their children. It is his opinion that the National School Lunch program should be free to all children without regard to income, rather than based on the proposition that the cost for the poor should be taken from the affluent.

After the interview, the superintendent’s administrative assistant told the author that he must have become aware of a strong negative attitude toward people on welfare. He explained this by the Mormon background of the town with its emphasis on self-reliance and refusal to yield to those who do not seem to want to stand on their own feet. This is how things are, he said.

In May 1972 the district had about 270 American Indian children attending its schools. Of these, 128 lived in a Bureau of Indian Affairs dormitory and attended district schools. The district was reimbursed for the lunches served on the basis of 30 cents, per child. The Bureau also paid the district for the educational instruction received by these dormitory children. The remaining American Indian children, 142, were from families residing in the district. The bulk of these, the superintendent said, received a free lunch. Perhaps 8-10 American Indian families, involving some 25 children, paid their own way in this respect. He added that there are no American Indian property owners in the district

The superintendent and/or his staff estimated that there were about 102 needy children among all children enrolled in the district.

In addition, there were 15-20 children from needy families whose parents refused to apply for a free or reduced price lunch out of a sense of pride, etc.

Whichever figure of needy is used, it is evident that a significant number of needy children, American Indian and other, would be eligible for a School Breakfast program. However, this program is not available to them to meet their nutritional needs and those of children from the more affluent families whose participation would be in their own interest.

The experiences of two school districts visited illustrated an apparent arbitrariness in the selection of some schools for the School Breakfast program but not of others though the latter appear to stand in a comparable posture. The criteria used appear to be private rather than those prescribed in the regulations. For instance, while a principal’s attitude toward bringing the School Breakfast program to his school is of great importance, he may be reluctant to take this action even though a significant proportion of the children in his charge will benefit. Experiences such as these contribute to the chancy character of the operational results that were described above.

The conclusion that in New Mexico the School Breakfast program has been unsuccessful from the standpoint of the American Indian school child is because access to it has been unavailable in many schools attended by that child. This result, the author believes, stems at least in part from the federal policy of local option which leaves to the state educational agency, to the district school board and to the principal of each school so much of the determination as to whether the program shall be offered.

The significance of this operational result stems from the fact that the state of health of the American Indian school child in New Mexico requires that the nutritional benefits of the School Breakfast program be made available to that child. If this program continues to be unsuccessful in New Mexico, the impact upon these children, as they grow into adulthood, may be serious indeed. Thus, something should be said about the health of the Indian child because it is this element which provides the basis for concern about the indifferent success of the School Breakfast program in New Mexico.

The author believes that the preceding analysis stands on its own feet, and offers the following, primarily for the purpose of illuminating the importance of the program for the health of the Indian child. Without giving this point the weight it deserves, it may be difficult to understand why intensified efforts toward achieving success for this program are so important.

A symposium was held in New Mexico in October 1970 on the subject of "Hunger and Malnutrition in New Mexico." Dr. David Law, Director of Medical Services, Veterans Hospital in Albuquerque, reviewed all the nutrition studies and surveys in New Mexico up to that time. He stated that a nutrition survey of the Greasewood Chapter of the Navajo Nation, made during December 1968 -February 1969 was one of the most complete. With reference to the findings from this study, Dr. Law said as follows:

Two earlier reports on the nutrition of the Navajo, published in 1965 and 1967, were reviewed as follows by Dr. Law:

The inadequacy of nutritional information about the American Indian school child (or other groups in New Mexico) has been stressed. On this point, Dr. Frances Le Baron, Professor of BioChemistry at the School of Medicine of the University of New Mexico, stated as follows in 1972:

In view of the paucity of information, sensitivity to the problem may be helped by recourse to more general information about the health of the American Indian.

The Panel on Nutrition and Special Groups of the National Nutritional Policy Study set up by the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs reported in 1974 that "The American Indian and Alaskan Native population is one of the most impoverished and malnourished ethnic groups in the United States." Information is provided by the panel to "depict the extremes of poverty, ill health and malnutrition in this population."

In conclusion, attention is directed to an approach for dealing with the fact that the federal policy of local option has not resulted in a successful School Breakfast program insofar as the American Indian school child in New Mexico is concerned. The suggestion is that among the requirements schools would have to follow in order to maintain accreditation with the State Board of Education would be participation in the School Breakfast program (and in such other nutritional programs, National School Lunch for example) as might be designated. In the same way that currently schools at the elementary and secondary levels must meet requirements with respect to curriculum, etc., they would also have to meet a child nutrition requirement in order to continue to receive educational funds from the state. The author was informed that no statutory change would be required to effectuate this suggestion in New Mexico. The organic law under which the State Board of Education operates does not set out the categories for which minimum requirements are to be met; the Board determines these categories. When the requirements are put in the School Code, they have the effect of law. Inasmuch as 78% of the revenues of school districts in New Mexico, the author was informed, is derived from the Board of Education, the pressure upon the districts to carry out a child nutrition requirement would be very great indeed.