Children who are malnourished can’t learn well; their brains don’t develop as they should; their futures can be troubled — costing society as a whole in the long run.

There is nothing new or startling in these research-based and widely accepted truths. What is new is recognizing that poverty exists even in well-heeled suburbs.

For our back-to-school edition last fall, we wrote about suburban schools — for decades a beacon, attracting city dwellers — now feeling the effects of poverty.

“Since the downturn of the economic system, what was there,” Rebecca Gardner said of poverty, “has become much more severe very quickly.” Gardner, who is on the faculty of the Capital Area School Development Association, teaches school leaders how to help students who live in poverty.

As a younger generation chooses urban living — after 60 years in decline, populations in Capital Region cities saw increases in the last census — more poor people in metro areas live outside of big cities than within them, according to a Brookings Institute study, “Confronting Suburban Poverty in America.”

We wrote about the uptick of poverty in the Guilderland School District, which borders the city of Albany. In 2007-08, five percent of Guilderland students were economically disadvantaged; by last year, that percentage had nearly tripled to 14.9 percent. And school leaders noted, based on data from state tests, poverty was a factor in student scores.

With the Great Recession, said Gardner, “A lot of people lost jobs and homes, something they never imagined happening. They are shell-shocked, ashamed, frightened. They don’t know what to do and are hiding that.”

The superintendent of the Guilderland schools, Marie Wiles, concurred, noting suburban poverty is different than urban and rural poverty, which are widely recognized. “It’s hidden,” she said. “There’s such a stigma to it, families will do anything to mask their poverty. It’s different than in a rural community or urban setting where that’s how things are. In Guilderland, when you’re surrounded by people who have a lot, you’re more sensitive.”

The startling news, broken by our New Scotland reporter, Jo E. Prout, in a story last week, is that the Voorheesville School District — just last year named by Buffalo Business First as the wealthiest of 431 upstate school systems — now has nearly 10 percent of its students meeting the requirement for free or reduced-price lunches, a reliable measure of poverty. The federal eligibility guideline is $11,770 for a household of one, with $4,160 added for each household member.

One of the simplest and most effective measures a district can take to help students living in poverty is to offer free meals through a federally subsidized program. When President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty, one battle in that war was to feed hungry children at school. The Child Nutrition Act that he signed into law in 1966 began the national school lunch program, which has since been expanded to include breakfast.

Kids learn better when they’ve had a nutritious breakfast, and the federal guidelines ensure meals that also teach good eating habits. The epidemic of obesity in this country is, like the malnourishment of children, costly for society as a whole.

Four years ago, the New York State comptroller, Thomas DiNapoli, released a report on childhood obesity that concluded obesity cost the state $11.8 billion in health-care expenses in 2011 — and costs have only grown since then. DiNapoli said childhood obesity had reached “epidemic proportions,” affecting a third of New York’s kids.

Many of the children who live in poverty — and that is close to a quarter of all New York children —also struggle with being overweight because cheap foods are often not nutritious.

The Voorheesville School Board had the right reaction to news of the increased poverty levels when it decided to set up a breakfast program at the elementary school, similar to that at the secondary school.

“We should consider implementing a bagged breakfast program for the elementary school next year,” the assistant superintendent for finance told the board. “We can work out a plan and determine the cost. This would be eligible for federal reimbursement.”

“I wouldn’t want to wait for next year,” said the board’s vice president, Cheryl Dozier.

We wholeheartedly agree with her. At the same meeting, the board agreed to budget $8,500 for a new washer so students can carry their food on reusable trays. There will be costs for added water, added labor, and the trays themselves. While we admire the students who pushed for an end to using the cheaper but unhealthy Styrofoam trays, we believe feeding students who may otherwise go hungry more important.

As we’ve pointed out, feeding students nutritious meals is a wise investment.

The same day we published Prout’s front-page story, March 10, Hunger Solutions New York, an anti-hunger not-for-profit, released a report on statewide school breakfast participation. The report shows that, while the number of free and reduced-price breakfasts served since the 2013-14 school year has increased, the percentage of low-income children who participated in the program actually decreased, despite a growing number who qualify.

Our state is among the lowest-performing states — ranked 39th out of 50 — in reaching low-income participants with breakfast. Last year, 1.58 million public school students in New York qualified to eat free or reduced-price school breakfasts, yet only 28 percent did so each day.

This means the state is losing out on federal funding: If 70 percent were reached with both breakfast and lunch, New York would have brought in an additional $80 million in federal reimbursement last year.

Locally, at rural Berne-Knox-Westerlo, for the 2013-14 school year, 37 percent of the 878 students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals, the report says. Of those 325 students, 37 percent, or 109 students, participated. Overall participation is reported at 16 percent.

In suburban Guilderland, 16 percent of 3,362 students were eligible, the report says, and, of those 523 students, 17 percent, or 88 students participated. Overall participation is reported at 3 percent.

We encourage school leaders, and community leaders, too, to read the Hunger Solutions report, “School Breakfast: Reducing Child Hunger, Bolstering Student Success,” which is chock full of ideas to increase participation.

“Neither the best curriculum nor the most outstanding teachers can overcome the hurdle hunger poses,” the report says. “The School Breakfast Program (SBP) plays an instrumental role in providing a vital nutritional support to children who arrive at school hungry. Research tells us that these children are at a physical, academic, and social disadvantage.”

The report itemizes the many detrimental effects of hunger — lower test scores; a likelihood of repeating grades; an increased risk of being absent, tardy, or suspended; problems with focusing or paying attention; and being less alert with reduced attention spans.

On the plus side, the report states that kids who eat breakfast have improved cognitive function, attention, and memory; are more likely to have a lower body mass index and less likely to be overweight or obese; have fewer disciplinary problems; and perform better on standardized tests.

The program incidentally helps students from households that can afford breakfast but in the morning rush are too busy to prepare it. They can buy a breakfast and improve their school performance, too.

The report outlines several models — including interviews with those who run successful programs — that increase participation. The “Grab and Go” model, for example, lets kids pick up bagged breakfasts from hallway carts.

The “Second Chance Breakfast” works well in secondary schools where students are often not hungry early in the morning and it reduces the stigma, which is heightened in middle school, the report says — staff serves breakfast after first period during a morning nutrition break or between class periods.

We’re pleased that all the schools we cover now offer — or will soon — breakfast programs. The next important step, though, is to get more kids to use the programs. Launch an information campaign; engage students to promote the program; host competitions between buildings or districts — do what it takes to get the numbers up.

The benefits will be more than just financial; student learning and quality of life will be enriched.

— Melissa Hale-Spencer