Exclusive: Teachers increasingly worried about childhood hunger, survey finds
The big picture: Proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a federal food assistance program serving more than 41 million Americans, could exacerbate an already dire issue, experts say.
Around 40% of SNAP benefits go to children, per USDA data.
What they're saying:"SNAP is one of the most effective tools we have as a nation to address childhood hunger," Sarah Steely, director of No Kid Hungry Virginia, told Axios.
"It provides families with that extra help to put food on the table so that kids can have access to consistent nutrition all year round, especially filling the void during school breaks."
Zoom in: Nearly 8 in 10 (78%) of teachers said they were concerned about food insecurity in the communities where they teach, per a survey of 1,000 K-12 public school teachers.
It was commissioned by meal kit provider HelloFresh in partnership with No Kid Hungry, a campaign focused on ending childhood hunger.
"Teachers are sounding the alarm that the state of hunger in this country and in their classrooms is really unacceptable," Steely said.
She added that the stark figure shows "we're failing our students and that we need to do better."
By the numbers: About three-quarters (74%) of teachers said they see students come to school hungry at least monthly, per the survey.
About six in 10 teachers (61%) reported knowing firsthand that their students are experiencing hunger.
State of play: Food prices skyrocketed during the pandemic, but have continued to climb since, growing 23.6% from 2020 to 2024 and outpacing overall inflation, per the U.S. Economic Research Service.
"Food insecurity grew, and it didn't stop growing after the end of the pandemic," said Jeff Yorzyk, senior director of sustainability at HelloFresh. "So we're seeing a growing problem there, and we're seeing shrinking resources being put against it."
Almost half of teachers surveyed said they've grown more concerned about food insecurity compared to the past 12 months.
Rising cost of food (79%) and low household incomes (74%) were cited as the top barriers that teachers believe are preventing their students from getting enough to eat.
Between the lines: The Trump administration's new tariffs and retaliatory action could cause food prices to rise again.
In addition, House Republicans voted last month to pass a budget resolution that sets the stage for $230 billion or more in cuts to agriculture programs, with a large chunk expected to come from SNAP.
"It is exactly the type of program that helps families during these times of concern," Steely said. "This is not the time to be cutting SNAP."
The bottom line: A large majority of teachers, 88%, agreed they would like to see more done about the current state of hunger and food insecurity in general.
"We definitely saw really strong results with teachers feeling that policy solutions should be in place," Yorzyk told Axios.
"There's a real need for state, federal and local government to partner in addressing this," he said, adding there's a place for corporations to be a part of the solution too.
"Teachers have enough going on, and they should be able to focus their time on educating our nation's students, and not feeding them," Steely said.
The fine print: The online survey was conducted among 1,000 K-12 public school teachers between Jan. 30 and Feb. 3.
Go deeper: What cutting junk foods from SNAP could mean for millions of recipients
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
WFISD announces policy for free and reduced-price meals
The Wichita Falls Independent School District has announced its policy for providing free and reduced-price meals for qualified students. WFISD has distributed letters to households of children in the district. Applications are also available online at or at the Child Nutrition Office, 2015 Fifth St. Bldg. A in Wichita Falls. Criteria for free and reduced-price meals is based on household income and whether a household receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). WFISD said in a press release it is working with local agencies to identify children who are eligible. Those contacted by the district will not need to complete an application. Any household is not contacted but feels it is qualified may email sgallentine@ or call 940-235-1065 ext. 29003. More: Roaches on the counter, dishes in the mop sink in latest inspections More: WinCo plans hiring event for new store in Wichita Falls This article originally appeared on Wichita Falls Times Record News: WFISD announces policy for free and reduced-price meals Solve the daily Crossword
CNET
3 hours ago
- CNET
Lights Off, Cash Saved: How I Finally Beat My Energy Bill
When summer heat hits hard, blasting the air conditioner is usually the go-to move, but that comfort comes with a price. With electricity rates rising and inflation squeezing wallets, high energy bills are stressing out nearly 80% of Americans, according to a recent CNET survey. But staying cool doesn't have to mean draining your bank account. One of the easiest ways to reduce your energy usage is also one of the most overlooked: Turn off the lights when you leave a room. Every bulb generates heat that makes your air conditioner work overtime. In the summer, that extra strain can cost you more than you think. Combine this small habit with other smart strategies, like closing blinds during peak sun hours, using ceiling fans effectively and unplugging unused electronics -- and you can make a noticeable dent in your bill without sacrificing comfort. Want to beat the heat and lower your energy costs? Start by flipping the switch. Why should you turn off the lights? You've probably been told time and time again the importance of conserving energy, but you might be wondering why it's so important. First, reducing your energy usage by turning off your lights is an excellent way to reduce your carbon footprint. Electricity generation is one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. By turning off your lights when you aren't using them, you can do your part to reduce carbon emissions and therefore help the environment. Second, reducing your home's energy usage doesn't just help the environment. It also helps your wallet. Turning off lights when you don't need them can help to reduce your electricity bills. You'll also extend the life of your light bulbs, which will save you money as well. Pro savings tip Buying a smart lightbulb can help you conserve energy by setting your lights to go on and off at certain times, so no more falling asleep with all the lights left on overnight. The Wiz tunable white LED smart bulb is CNET's pick for the best white-light smart bulb. Details $20 at Amazon How much money can you save? The amount you can save on your electricity bill by turning off your lights depends on the type of light bulb you use. You can figure your potential savings using the light bulb's wattage. Let's say you have a light bulb that's 40 watts, meaning in one hour, the bulb will use 0.04 kWh. Then, you can use your electricity price — which you can find on your most recent utility bill — to figure out how much you'll save for that hour. In the case of the 40-watt bulb, if you pay an electricity rate of 10 cents per kWh, your savings by turning that bulb off for one hour would be 0.4 cents. It's easy to see that number and think it's simply not worth it to turn off your lights more often. After all, what difference does 0.4 cents make? First, remember that estimate is for a 40-watt bulb. If you have higher-wattage light bulbs, the savings will be greater. Next, that estimate uses an energy price of 10 cents per kWh, but in many areas, the price of electricity may be higher than that. Finally, our estimate looked at the savings of turning off one bulb for one hour. You likely have many light bulbs in your house, and there are far more than just one hour in a month. So when you calculate the savings of turning off all of your light bulbs for many more hours per month, your savings will increase significantly. When should you turn off the lights? You can save money by turning off your lights and fans whenever you don't need them. During the spring and summer, it's a good idea to check in on the peak and off-peak energy hours in your area. Many providers use a time-of-use electricity plan where energy costs rise during peak hours, or hours where the grid is facing higher demand, and lower during off-peak hours. These hours change depending on the seasons, so transitioning between seasons is a good time to check on when you're paying the most for energy. During peak hours, usually during the afternoons in the summer while in the early morning and in the evenings after sunset during winter, it's helpful to be especially diligent in turning off lights and other electronic appliances when you leave a room to cut down on your energy bill. Thankfully, during the spring and summer, daylight saving time is in effect, which means more daylight and less need to have the lights on in your home. A small change can yield big savings Turning off the lights and other electric appliances when you aren't using them is one of the most basic steps you can take to reduce your energy usage and save money on your electricity bill. Just remember that even a small change can add up to big energy savings for you and also help reduce your carbon footprint. More money-saving tips for you
Atlantic
10 hours ago
- Atlantic
One Way Parents Can Fight the Phone-Based Childhood
One common explanation for why children spend so much of their free time on screens goes like this: Smartphones and social-media platforms are addicting them. Kids stare at their devices and socialize online instead of in person because that's what tech has trained them to want. But this misses a key part of the story. The three of us collaborated with the Harris Poll to survey a group of Americans whose perspectives don't often show up in national data: children. What they told us offers a comprehensive picture of how American childhood is changing—and, more important, how to make it better. In March, the Harris Poll surveyed more than 500 children ages 8 to 12 across the United States, who were assured that their answers would remain private. They offered unmistakable evidence that the phone-based childhood is in full force. A majority reported having smartphones, and about half of the 10-to-12-year-olds said that most or all of their friends use social media. This digital technology has given kids access to virtual worlds, where they're allowed to roam far more freely than in the real one. About 75 percent of kids ages 9 to 12 regularly play the online game Roblox, where they can interact with friends and even strangers. But most of the children in our survey said that they aren't allowed to be out in public at all without an adult. Fewer than half of the 8- and 9-year-olds have gone down a grocery-store aisle alone; more than a quarter aren't allowed to play unsupervised even in their own front yard. Jonathan Haidt: End the phone-based childhood now Yet these are exactly the kinds of freedoms that kids told us they long for. We asked them to pick their favorite way to spend time with friends: unstructured play, such as shooting hoops and exploring their neighborhood; participating in activities organized by adults, such as playing Little League and doing ballet; or socializing online. There was a clear winner. Children want to meet up in person, no screens or supervision. But because so many parents restrict their ability to socialize in the real world on their own, kids resort to the one thing that allows them to hang out with no adults hovering: their phones. ince the 1980s, parents have grown more and more afraid that unsupervised time will expose their kids to physical or emotional harm. In another recent Harris Poll, we asked parents what they thought would happen if two 10-year-olds played in a local park without adults around. Sixty percent thought the children would likely get injured. Half thought they would likely get abducted. These intuitions don't even begin to resemble reality. According to Warwick Cairns, the author of How to Live Dangerously, kidnapping in the United States is so rare that a child would have to be outside unsupervised for, on average, 750,000 years before being snatched by a stranger. Parents know their neighborhoods best, of course, and should assess them carefully. But the tendency to overestimate risk comes with its own danger. Without real-world freedom, children don't get the chance to develop competence, confidence, and the ability to solve everyday problems. Indeed, independence and unsupervised play are associated with positive mental-health outcomes. Still, parents spend more time supervising their kids than parents did in the 1960s, even though they now work more and have fewer children. Across all income levels, families have come to believe that organized activities are the key to kids' safety and success. So sandlot games gave way to travel baseball. Cartwheels at the park gave way to competitive cheer teams. Kids have been strapped into the back seat of their lives—dropped off, picked up, and overhelped. As their independence has dwindled, their anxiety and depression have spiked. And they aren't the only ones suffering. In 2023, the surgeon general cited intensive caregiving as one reason today's parents are more stressed than ever. From the February 2025 Issue: The anti-social century Kids will always have more spare hours than adults can supervise—a gap that devices now fill. 'Go outside' has been quietly replaced with 'Go online.' The internet is one of the only escape hatches from childhoods grown anxious, small, and sad. We certainly don't blame parents for this. The social norms, communities, infrastructure, and institutions that once facilitated free play have eroded. Telling children to go outside doesn't work so well when no one else's kids are there. That's why we're so glad that groups around the country are experimenting with ways to rebuild American childhood, rooting it in freedom, responsibility, and friendship. In Piedmont, California, a network of parents started dropping their kids off at the park every Friday to play unsupervised. Sometimes the kids argue or get bored—which is good. Learning to handle boredom and conflict is an essential part of child development. Elsewhere, churches, libraries, and schools are creating screen-free ' play clubs.' To ease the transition away from screens and supervision, the Outside Play Lab at the University of British Columbia developed a free online tool that helps parents figure out how to give their kids more outdoor time, and why they should. More than a thousand schools nationwide have begun using a free program from Let Grow, a nonprofit that two of us—Lenore and Jon—helped found to foster children's independence. K–12 students in the program get a monthly homework assignment: Do something new on your own, with your parents' permission but without their help. Kids use the prompt to run errands, climb trees, cook meals. Some finally learn how to tie their own shoes. Here's what one fourth grader with intellectual disabilities wrote—in her own words and spelling: This is my fist let it gow project. I went shoping by myself. I handle it wheel but the ceckout was a lit hard but it was fun to do. I leand that I am brave and can go shop by myself. I loved my porject. Other hopeful signs are emerging. The New Jersey–based Balance Project is helping 50 communities reduce screen time and restore free play for kids, employing the 'four new norms' that Jon lays out in The Anxious Generation. This summer, Newburyport, Massachusetts, is handing out prizes each week to kids who try something new on their own. (Let Grow has a tool kit for other communities that want to do the same.) The Boy Scouts—now rebranded as Scouting America, and open to all young people—is finally growing again. We could go on. What we see in the data and from the stories parents send us is both simple and poignant: Kids being raised on screens long for real freedom. It's like they're homesick for a world they've never known. Granting them more freedom may feel uncomfortable at first. But if parents want their kids to put down their phones, they need to open the front door. Nearly three-quarters of the children in our survey agreed with the statement 'I would spend less time online if there were more friends in my neighborhood to play with in person.' If nothing changes, Silicon Valley will keep supplying kids with ever more sophisticated AI 'friends' that are always available and will cater to a child's every whim. But AI will never fulfill children's deepest desires. Even this generation of digital natives still longs for what most of their parents had: time with friends, in person, without adults.
