Question

What is your view on this student's response from the example on school lunches? Please see below.

The example involves a public school cafeteria serving lunch. Some students pay full price for their food, but others receive lunch for a reduced price or for free under the federal National School Lunch Program. For simplicity's sake, let's assume the school cafeteria meets all nutritional requirements to qualify for NSLP - all it needs to do now is serve the lunches. The grant is expenditure driven - when the school district proves the reduced price and free meals have been provided, the federal government owes it a grant payment. (Again, we'll ignore the part of the program that involves school districts receiving free food products from the USDA to use in the meals.)

Student's Response: The school and student are conducting a nonexchange transaction when the school provides a lunch valued at X for free to the student. I base this on the GASB definitions of the two types of transactions. Exchange transactions are those in which each party receives and gives up essentially equal. Nonexchange transactions are those in which a government gives or receives value without directly receiving or giving equal value in exchange. The student receives a meal, so the school (government) provided value. However, the school did not directly receive any value from the student.

Answer 1

Any understudy in a taking an interesting school can get an NSLP lunch paying little heed to the understudy's family unit salary. Qualified understudies can get free or scaled-down value snacks:

Free snacks are accessible to youngsters in family units with salaries at or beneath 130 per cent of neediness.

Discounted value snacks are accessible to kids in family units with wages somewhere in the range of 130 and 185 per cent of neediness.

Assorted variety would be extraordinary in school snacks, similar to progressively ethnic nourishment that has a solid decent footing in the American food. Be that as it may, the issue with veggie lovers and vegans is that lamentably they make up a little populace of individuals who have lunch, and I would see a test for a whole framework to adjust to the minority. Despite the fact that the entire framework probably won't have the option to adjust, that isn't to state change is unthinkable. A choice of a serving of mixed greens bar would be phenomenal, with alternatives being accessible to the individuals who happen to be veggie lover or vegan. I concur that there should be more products of the soil, yet the issue is we are managing young people who couldn't think less about practising good eating habits. The test is to cause sound nourishment to appear to be speaking to the lousy nourishment filled psyche of a young person.

In light of worries about the job of the school supper condition in youngsters' eating regimens and different issues, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 built up refreshed sustenance gauges for school dinners and for non-USDA nourishments (regularly called "serious food sources") sold at schools partaking in USDA's school feast programs. The enactment approved an extra 6-penny installment for every supper when schools showed that they were serving dinners that fulfilled the new guidelines; the enactment likewise settled new guidelines at feast costs charged to understudies not confirmed for nothing or marked down value suppers. The Act additionally made the Community Eligibility Provision, another choice that permits high-neediness schools to offer free suppers to all understudies.