The evidence of positive effects of family meals is compelling. However, there are questions that must be taken into careful consideration before the district pursues such a program. First of all, the number of teens who eat at least seven meals per week with their families is much too small to be statistically significant. One or two meals per week would be adequate for small children, but teens need at least five meals per day to continue their growth. Second, the survey did not ask how often teens ate with their families. Teens who do not eat with their families, whether because of extracurricular activities or work schedules, would not be included in the calculation. If there is a need for public policy to encourage family dining, then efforts must be made to ensure that these teens are included, or the program would be deemed a failure.

The district may have meant to encourage family meals, but it has done just the opposite. The recommendation was tied to the belief that family meals are associated with less substance abuse, depression, and low grades in school. However, if family meals actually caused these problems, then teens who eat with their families would be less likely to use them. However, correlations do not imply causation. At the very least, these correlations show that the three issues may be related in some way, but cause and effect cannot be determined. The same may be true for other outcomes such as absenteeism from school. Even if family meals do help to lower these problems, it does not mean that teens who eat with their families are any less likely to use the drugs and alcohol listed in the recommendation. These teens simply have fewer opportunities to do so. A look at some of the districts that have successfully implemented school lunches that show positive effects on student achievement may help the district in its decision-making process. For example, the Pittsburgh school district implemented a lunch program in 2007 that served a hot meal to each school. The meals were free to all students. The meals were designed to include plenty of fruits and vegetables and whole grains. Students who participated in the lunch program improved their academic performance from the previous year. The lunches also improved the nutrition levels of the students, which may have helped them perform better academically.

Some school districts have found a way to encourage family meals without dealing with teen behavior. For example, the School District of Pasco, Washington, has a program called the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). CEP works with low-income students by allowing their schools to serve breakfast and lunch at no charge to all the students. All families are required to fill out the Free and Reduced Price Lunch application to receive free meals. CEP schools receive federal grants to provide meals to low-income students. In 2012, CEP served more than 50,000 meals to students in 150 schools. One-third of the students were from households that earned less than $30,000 per year, and 59 percent of the families were headed by a single mother. The program also improved the student’s nutrition, and 72 percent of the students reported eating breakfast at school, 80 percent reported eating lunch, and 50 percent reported that they ate dinner at home. Like Pittsburgh’s free lunch program, CEP improved the students’ academic performance. In fact, students in the CEP schools had higher test scores in math and reading than their peers. Therefore, the Pasco school district has not only helped families to eat together, it has also helped students to do better in school.

The district’s assertion that family meals are beneficial does not prove that more family meals will lead to fewer problems among teens. The survey did not provide enough information to make a sound decision about the value of family meals. Many of the teens who eat with their families are not troubled. They are still developing emotionally, and they need the time to talk and play together. A district that wishes to encourage families to eat together might do a better job at designing after school activities that encourage bonding between parents and children.