When school meals stopped being free for every student, some elementary school teachers said they began noticing changes: fewer children eating school meals, more students appearing hungry and some worrying about whether their families could afford lunch.
Those observations come from a small qualitative study of 25 kindergarten through sixth-grade teachers at six elementary schools in Anchorage, Alaska, that was published in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. The research does not establish that ending universal free school meals caused more hunger or anxiety. Instead, it offers a window into what teachers said they witnessed in their classrooms before and after the federal pandemic-era policy expired.
During the 2021-22 school year, federal waivers allowed schools across the country to provide meals free to all students, regardless of household income. When those waivers expired, most states, including Alaska, returned to the traditional system in which free or reduced-price meals were based largely on household eligibility.
Researchers interviewed teachers during the winter and spring of 2023 and asked them to reflect on their experiences during the year universal meals were available and the following school year.
Teachers generally described universal meals as reducing worry around food. Some recalled students having a reliable option if they forgot lunch or did not have food from home. They also believed the policy relieved some pressure on families.
“I think the kids who would be shy about saying that they’re hungry or don’t have a lunch didn’t have to worry about that just because it was provided,” one teacher told researchers.
After universal meals ended, teachers described a different pattern. Several said fewer students ate school meals, including some children they believed qualified for free or reduced-price meals. Others recalled students expressing concern about lunch balances or whether they had enough money for a meal.
Teachers also described seeing children who appeared hungry later in the day. Some said those students had more difficulty concentrating or regulating their behavior, while several teachers reported giving snacks to students themselves.
One teacher described students who had not eaten enough at lunch “zoning out” by the afternoon and struggling to focus.
Those accounts do not mean researchers independently confirmed that the children were hungry or that hunger caused changes in their classroom behavior. The study did not measure students’ food intake, food insecurity, anxiety, academic performance or behavior. Researchers instead analyzed teachers’ descriptions of what they observed.
That distinction is particularly important because teachers did not necessarily know why individual students stopped eating school meals. Family finances, preferences and other circumstances could all influence participation.
Teachers raised some drawbacks to universal meals, too. Several believed more food was wasted when meals were available to everyone, particularly when children took food they did not like.
The study also explored where students ate and who supervised them, revealing another side of the school lunch experience. About half of the teachers supervised students eating in classrooms and half supervised cafeteria meals.
Some teachers said classroom meals created a quieter atmosphere and gave students and teachers more opportunities to talk and build relationships. They also thought having a familiar teacher present helped with behavior.
But those arrangements came with tradeoffs. Teachers described losing planning or break time while supervising lunch and dealing with food, trash and cleanup in their classrooms.
The researchers said teacher perspectives can add an important layer to discussions about school meal policies because teachers spend much of the day observing students. At the same time, the study has significant limitations.
Only 25 teachers participated, all from six Anchorage elementary schools involved in a broader school wellness initiative. Teachers volunteered for the interviews, raising the possibility that those who participated had different views of school meal programs than teachers who did not. They were also asked to remember and compare experiences across two school years, making recall errors possible.
Most importantly, the findings capture what teachers perceived. They cannot determine whether the policy change itself caused the differences teachers described.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.