Chicago public school bans students from bringing lunch

[WhyNot]

@MandaJo

Is this some sort of Charter School?

No.

Little Village is a Neighborhood School, meaning that any child living in the neighborhood boundaries (think “district”, except that all of Chicago is one district, so we use “neighborhoods” instead) will attend, unless they’ve made other arrangements to attend private school or a charter or magnet school in another neighborhood.

In other words, it’s a “regular” public school.

It’s also got 99.9% low income students, which means they’re all eligible for free or reduced priced lunches already.

There is another potential angle for money here, that y’all have missed: the school gets more funding from the state for each student that returns the Application for Free or Reduced Price Lunches and qualifies for free or reduced price lunch - whether or not they actually get the lunches. So most schools beg, cajole, plead and weep tears of frustration as parents get the forms and don’t return them. By banning bringing lunch from home and then handing the parent the form, they’re much more likely to fill it out, no? And so the school gets more money per pupil from the state - completely unrelated to the lunch program. They get more money for books and pencils and teachers’ salaries to hire more teachers and reduce class size because they’re serving a documented percentage of low-income students.

Though that sounds cynical, I really don’t think that’s a bad thing. These *are *poor kids, and poor kids, even more than rich kids raised in homes with lots of books and highly educated parents, need an enhanced educational environment to have any chance at all to succeed academically. The state recognizes that, and accords schools with poor kids more money - but they determine that need through the Application for Free and Reduced Price Lunches.

The school is also located in one of Chicago’s infamous “food deserts” on the south side. The nearest major grocery store is 3.6 miles away - more than half an hour by bus. I have no doubt that most of these parents were sending their children with lunches comprised mostly of convenience store “foods”, not because they wanted to, but because there’s nothing else quick and easy to buy nearby.

Given all that (which I get that most of you probably didn’t know, not being from Chicago), I can’t fault the school for this experiment. I wouldn’t be happy with it in a more affluent school where people lived near healthy food options, but in the particular situation this school is dealing with, I think it’s making the best of a bad situation, and a good faith attempt to deal with far larger socioeconomic issues than most schools have to deal with.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Everybody knows this story is bogus, right? The school district has denied that any such policy exists and says the principal was misquoted.

So what makes you think the school district is telling the truth now, rather than the reporter? This blog post by the reporter reiterates her claims:

There were two representatives of the CPS catering contractor Chartwells Thompson in the principal’s office when she, to my surprise, confirmed that she does indeed prohibit home lunches because she believes the school lunch is healthier than what she has seen kids bring on field trips. She noted that this did not apply to those with medical issues or allergies, which she estimated made up about 2 percent of the school population.
…
Since the story was published, the principal has been under tremendous pressure and has faced a lot of heat. She now says that she doesn’t employ the practice. Our story was not meant to vilify one individual – which, unfortunately, has happened – but to discuss an issue illustrated by this situation. We also wanted to explore the societal and economic forces that make such a policy seem attractive.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@even_sven

It’s 5 meals out of 21 in a school week- or 180 out of 1,092 in a year. I imagine that is not going to destroy your family’s special food culture or your child’s appreciation of food and cooking.

Would you consider making some small accommodations for a program like this if it is shown to have a positive effect on public health? Do you feel the same about other public health measures, such as vaccination?

You’re fucking kidding me, right? This has got to be a joke.

Okay, look. If my daughter’s consumption of homemade food reduces herd immunity, I’ll concede the point. Until then, I’ll just laugh at this, the most ridiculous analogy I’ve ever read in Great Debates.

[WhyNot]

@Shodan

IOW, whenever the state (or its agents) impose a rule, they have to show cause. As I said earlier, that some minority of parents don’t pack their kids a healthy lunch is not reason enough to prevent all parents from packing their kids a lunch.

Regards,
Shodan

How many, in your legal estimation, would have to not pack a healthy lunch before there is sufficient cause? 25%? 51%? 99%?

I have no first hand data, but given the neighborhood and percentage of low-income students, I would be shocked if even 25% of the parents there DID pack a healthy lunch, by current USDA school lunch nutritional standards.

(And no, I didn’t realize that the principal is now denying the policy. Ah well. Still an interesting discussion of theory.)

[crowmanyclouds]

@Shodan

You are making the common mistake of thinking that whatever is not mandatory is forbidden.

The burden of proof is on the school to show that they have the power to compel students to do something, generally in support of their educational mission. Assisting their caterer in imposing a monopoly is not really in support of any kind of educational mission.

IOW, whenever the state (or its agents) impose a rule, they have to show cause. As I said earlier, that some minority of parents don’t pack their kids a healthy lunch is not reason enough to prevent all parents from packing their kids a lunch.

Regards,
Shodan

I’m not really interested in the school’s lunch policies at all.

You, seemingly, are comparing that policy to a mandatory prayer and a, presumably, mandatory recitation of the Pledge.

I’ve got SoCaS case law that goes back to at least 1890, the Edgerton Bible Case, you’ve got what exactly?

CMC fnord!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@WhyNot

How many, in your legal estimation, would have to not pack a healthy lunch before there is sufficient cause? 25%? 51%? 99%?

The theoretical guideline is that the government should always use the least restrictive rules to fix a social ill. So if 99.7% of students were making unhealthy lunches, and 0.3% (1 kid) was making healthy lunches, if there’s a rule that can allow that 1 kid to keep bringing lunch, let’s do it.

Here’s the rule.

@Proposed rule

Student lunches brought from home must conform to the guidelines for the cafeteria. They must include at least 1 serving of unsweetened fruit or vegetable, 1 serving of protein, and 1 serving of whole-grain carbohydrate. They may include no more than 1 serving of sweetened food–dessert, candy, fruit punch, etc. If a student brings a lunch that violates this policy, the school may require the student to purchase school lunch for a period of time not to exceed 45 days. Exceptions to this rule must be sought in advance and will be given at the principal’s discretion in writing.

That might need a little work (do potato chips count as a vegetable?), but something along those lines would allow a student to bring a healthful lunch, and it would be up to the teacher to notice if a student is not doing so and what to do about it.

I’m not convinced that even this policy is acceptable, but it’s a lot more acceptable than preventing home lunches altogether.

[WhyNot]

@tumbleddown

I guess that means if you keep kosher or halal or if your family is ethically vegetarian or vegan, you’re SOL

@crowmanyclouds

*Granted, I am certain they can’t force Jewish students to eat pork . . . Muslim students on the other hand :dubious:.

The student body is 99.6% Hispanic. There are 3 students there who are NOT Hispanic. Trust me, there are *no *families who keep kosher or Halal sending their kids to Little Village.

I do like your proposal, LHOD. I like it a lot. I’m a fan of addressing the issue directly, instead of trying to force change by indirect means. I suspect that the practical upshot would be that most of these parents wouldn’t be able to meet those requirements, and so would choose the school lunch anyhow, but yeah, I like your clear and specific guidelines, clear consequences and assumption of competence. And heck, maybe if that sort of thing was implemented, the convenience stores would start stocking whole grains and fruits and veggies to meet the increased demand! Maybe. It would be nice, wouldn’t it?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

So what makes you think the school district is telling the truth now, rather than the reporter?

The story claimed that the school has had this policy for the past six years. If that is the case, it should be pretty easy to verify. What corroboration is there that the school has banned bag lunches for the past six years other than this one reporter’s quote/misquote of this principal?

[even_sven]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You’re fucking kidding me, right? This has got to be a joke.

Okay, look. If my daughter’s consumption of homemade food reduces herd immunity, I’ll concede the point. Until then, I’ll just laugh at this, the most ridiculous analogy I’ve ever read in Great Debates.

Sorry, I forgot that mentioning vaccines makes people rabid. Choose whatever analogy you like for a situation where we, as a community, choose to make small sacrifices for the sake of public health.

I still just don’t get the outrage. Why aren’t you upset they force your kid to run pointlessly around the track during PE? Or they interfere with the most basic bodily function of all- pissing when you gotta piss? The school day is one long parade of "people telling your kid what to do. Why is it a huge deal if they include a meal in that (assuming the meal is equivalently tasty and nutritious as something homemade?)

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The story claimed that the school has had this policy for the past six years. If that is the case, it should be pretty easy to verify. What corroboration is there that the school has banned bag lunches for the past six years other than this one reporter’s quote/misquote of this principal?

This is a non-answer to my question.

even sven, I don’t give a shit if you don’t think it’s a big deal. You have less than no weight when it comes to judging my parenting priorities. As for mentioning vaccines making people “rabid,” that’s only true to the extent that you’ve equated my feeding my child healthy food with my risking the health and even life of my child and other children. It’s an offensive, stupid analogy, and instead of offering a supercilious snarky apology, you should be genuinely ashamed.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This is a non-answer to my question.

This is a non-answer to my question.

Are you asserting that this policy actually exists and has existed for the past six years despite the school district saying it has not and does not? If so, then you’re the one who needs to back it up with something. I think it’s implausible that the school district would lie about something that could be so easily exposed if true. My answer to your question is that I find the it far more plausible that a reporter got something wrong than that a school district would make a denial that could be so easily shown to be a lie. Do you have a different opinion? Is there any corroboration that this policy has existed for the last 6 years? I’m asking because I don’t know. I do find it hard to believe, though.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I’m asking because I don’t know. I do find it hard to believe, though.

Now you’re saying “I don’t know.” That’s different from the post I responded to, and I agree with it.

[Shodan]

@WhyNot

How many, in your legal estimation, would have to not pack a healthy lunch before there is sufficient cause? 25%? 51%? 99%?

Suppose it’s 51%. How does that justify denying 49% of students from bringing their own lunch?

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

So we agree that the story appears to bogus? Is there any reason to doubt the district’s denial?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

So we agree that the story appears to bogus? Is there any reason to doubt the district’s denial?

No, we agree that you don’t know. And of course there’s a reason to doubt the district’s denial – more, IMO, than there’s a reason to doubt the reporter’s claim.

If you have any more specifics on the district’s denial than the link that I posted (i.e., if you have something from the district), I’d be interested in a link.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I don’t have a burden of proof. If you want to assert that a policy exists, back it up. If you can’t, then the working assumption should be that the district is correct in saying it doesn’t.

And what reason is there to doubt the district’s claim? Can you provide any corroboration that this policy has been in effect for 6 years, or can’t you?

It doesn’t mean the reporter lied, by the way, but probably just misunderstood something. In any case, if this policy has really been in effect for 6 years it should be pretty easy to verify, and would be implausibly stupid to deny.

[Sarahfeena]

@even_sven

Sorry, I forgot that mentioning vaccines makes people rabid. Choose whatever analogy you like for a situation where we, as a community, choose to make small sacrifices for the sake of public health.

I still just don’t get the outrage. Why aren’t you upset they force your kid to run pointlessly around the track during PE? Or they interfere with the most basic bodily function of all- pissing when you gotta piss? The school day is one long parade of "people telling your kid what to do. Why is it a huge deal if they include a meal in that (assuming the meal is equivalently tasty and nutritious as something homemade?)

Because they actually can force the kid to run around the track…or, at least, put a high level of social pressure on them to do it…but they really can’t do the same with food.

[WhyNot]

@Shodan

Suppose it’s 51%. How does that justify denying 49% of students from bringing their own lunch?

Regards,
Shodan

Well, if 51% is “sufficient cause”, then it’s sufficient - that was my question to you. What I was asking was how many kids need to bring crap - sorry, lunches not meeting USDA requirements, if you prefer - before schools are legally justified in intervening, the same way many intervene in providing sex education or instituting dress codes - other areas in which things once left to the families have been “taken over” by some schools.

You brought up sufficient cause, with the assumption that there aren’t enough kids bringing crap to currently reach that benchmark. I’m wondering what the benchmark is.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You’re fucking kidding me, right? This has got to be a joke.

Okay, look. If my daughter’s consumption of homemade food reduces herd immunity, I’ll concede the point. Until then, I’ll just laugh at this, the most ridiculous analogy I’ve ever read in Great Debates.

Perhaps they’ve decided that this policy (let’s assume it exists and skip the Dio Show today) is the most efficient way of addressing the problem of poor nutritional planning by the families of schoolchildren in this district.

I think the comparison to mandatory vaccination is rather obvious: some autonomy is curbed in order to advance, in a more efficient way than otherwise, a worthy public health goal. Do you have any particular reason for asserting it is a ridiculous analogy (which, if it really is the most ridiculous analogy you’ve ever encountered, then you ought to be able to come up with at least a few points readily)?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

How is it “the Dio show” to simply point out that the policy you’re debating does not, in fact, appear to exist? Shouldn’t a premise for debate have to be supported?