MANCHESTER, NH – In December, the Manchester Board of School Committee asked leadership of the Manchester School District to provide a solution to growing student meal debt. Unfortunately, the solution brought forward satisfied no one, including the leaders who submitted it.
During the Jan. 21, 2026 Board of School Committee Policy Committee meeting, an amendment was proposed to the Manchester School District’s Meal Charging Policy, also known as Fiscal 129. In the proposal, any middle school or high school student with over $75 of unpaid school meals could be given a sunflower butter sandwich or a cheese sandwich with a container of milk as a free alternative for lunch, and cereal with a container of milk.
Students of families agreeing to pay back any portion of the debt could be provided with any meal provided by the district at reduced or no cost or reduced cost and district officials would attempt to meet with families to help find a plan on repaying the debt. Families with $60 of unpaid school meal debt would be given a letter about the district’s meal debt policy and an application for free and reduced lunch aid. The $0.65 cost of the alternative meal would be paid for with a price increase on ala carte food items.
Members of the committee learned that adding fruits and vegetables to the alternative meal would require a much larger increase for ala carte items, potentially reducing the amount of ala carte items purchased to the point where it could potentially reduce revenue, defeating the purpose of the price increase.
The need for action came due to the fact the Manchester School District has absorbed $383,000 in unpaid meal charges during Fiscal Year 2025, an amount that has risen $117,000 over the past two fiscal years and is expected to remain high moving forward without action. Money to make up the deficit has had to come at the expense of other line items in the district’s general fund.
There are currently 928 school lunch accounts that are $20 or more in debt.
This trend began largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as families eligible for free and reduced lunch aid stopped signing up for support as in-person instruction was paused. Each student eligible for free and reduced lunch aid that signs up for the program provides $10,750 in state financial aid for the school district. Manchester School District Chief Legal Officer Matthew Upton told the committee that if even a fraction of the families that were unaware they were eligible and signed up for the aid, the district’s debt problem would be resolved immediately. Additionally, if New Hampshire was one of the 43 states that automatically signs up students for free or reduced lunch aid for Medicaid-eligible children, that would also resolve the problem.
Manchester School District Superintendent Jenn Chmiel noted that Manchester is not the only school district in New Hampshire dealing with this problem and Nashua has implemented a comparable policy.
While there was consensus that free and reduced lunch is the best option to resolve the issue, until that threshold of signups can be obtained, Upton said that the amendment proposal was the best way to deal with the debt without taking funding from other parts of the district’s budget, even if it is a proposal district leadership does not prefer.
The Manchester School District’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget had grown to $237,999,925 from $183,052,004 for Fiscal Year 2021. Initially the Manchester Board of School Committee recommended $246,050,206 for the Fiscal Year ’26 budget.
Although district leaders stated that the proposal was not intended to punish students and the alternative meal items have already been made available for purchase in an attempt to reduce the stigma of being seen by poor by other students, the proposal received strong opposition.
Several people during public comment such as Anthony Poore spoke out against the idea. Poore, the parent of two children that have graduated from the Manchester School District, said that the proposal would create a “two-tier system” that would harm students emotionally, nutritionally, and academically.
“A child who goes to school hungry is not able to achieve their optimal academic outcomes,” he said.
Ward 5 Alderman Jason Bonilla, who served on the Board of School Committee until the end of December, questioned why balances were allowed to reach $75 in addition to questioning the labels used in the proposal, echoing the harm that would come to students that was noted by Poore.
“When I hear “alternative’, I hear ‘separate’,” he said. “That’s telling kids they’re different.”
New Hampshire Hunger Solutions Executive Director Laura Milliken agreed, stating some students would choose to skip meals rather than face embarrassment.
“A student’s tray is visible to every peer,” she said. “That cold sandwich becomes a marker of family hardship.”
Ward 11 Board of School Committee Member Liz O’Neill feared that efforts by staff to try and meet with parents to help them resolve the debt may be too much for an already overburdened staff.
Ward 7 Board of School Committee Member Chris Potter expressed frustration with the feeling that the incentive to address the debts comes from stigmatization and that it may not stop parents who could pay and choose not to which shifts the burden on families that cannot pay and are forced to make difficult choices.
“I’ve got a big problem with essentially holding students hostage where we’re giving them a hard time for something that’s out of their control intentionally, knowing that will incentive them to tell their parents,” he said. “I think we have to find a way to change the status quo where simply not paying is the same as getting a free lunch.
Ward 8 Board of School Committee Member Nicholas St. John said he would be okay with requiring meetings with parents with school lunch debt, but that he would not vote for the alternative lunch “in a million years.”
At-Large Board of School Committee Member James O’Connell was disappointed that the proposal was brought forward given its lack of support and the variety of much larger problems the district is facing.
“Let’s leave the kids alone. I think most of the kids in this chamber and this board support universal free meals for children,” said O’Connell. “I was in one school (last) Friday where two children from two different families had their fathers deported (on that day). In our school district, we have two kids who now don’t have dads and they’re going to go home for dinner and we’re going to go meet that family someplace and have a conversation with them?”
“We have 750 kids who are homeless, where are we going to meet them? (Are we going to say) We know you have to find a place for your tent tonight, but come and meet us at the welcome center at 3:30,” O’Connell added.
Chmiel reiterated that the proposal was brought forward because the board asked for administration to bring a proposal forward and that request was not optional. She also asked everyone opposed to the proposal to join district administrators at legislative hearings in Concord to advocate for legislative proposals that could help prevent the district from being faced with such decisions.
The proposal was ultimately withdrawn, with another proposal expected at some point in the future if state aid cannot be obtained from free and reduced lunch forms.