This article from the Tribune seems to confirm it.
This parent confirms the policy exists and agrees with it.
This school confiscates foods they consider unhealthy.
That’s true. And where it becomes tricky is if a child will not eat anything ever.
A day here or there won’t hurt but I’d suggest a child never eating the provided lunches has serious issues with food and such a pathological aversion may well require professional intervention.
Or is just…picky.
But see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704699604575343130457388718.html (discussing a proposal to include “selective eating” among the eating disorders listed in the DSM).
What requires professional intervention, and what receives professional interventions, are often not the same thing.
Because they believe the reporter more than the school district.
Thank you. I concede the point.
My point is that, if a wide range is provided and is of reasonable quality and yet a child will never eat any of it, that seems to go beyond “picky”.
But I also concede that I am a layperson when it comes to eating disorders.
Very true unfortunately.
I fucking hate this policy. So what if some kids bring Coke and Cheetos? Just ban Coke and Cheetos from being brought in for lunch. Forcing everyone to eat school lunch is a stupid and fascistic overaction when there are much better solutions.
(and if anyone says that if they simply ban Coke and Cheetos it won’t work because some kids will sneak them into school, they can still sneak them into school now that home lunches are banned)
Kids will always find a way to subvert any policy. That isn’t the point.
The way a school conducts itself and the examples it sets are a lesson in itself.
they should say “here are a selection of healthy, well prepared meals and we expect you to eat them or go hungry, those cans and chips are junk food and we disapprove. If you have a valid reason for not eating what we provide then we will compromise”
That says something about that school and it is a message I definitely buy into to.
Yes, it says that it is run by fucking fascists or people who are getting kickbacks from the catering company.
Why not say the following:
“Here is a selection of healthy, well prepared meals and we expect you to eat them or bring your own selection of similarly healthy items (described in the attached guidelines). Those cans and chips are junk food and we disapprove, and are not allowed on school premises.”
This gives the message that the school promotes healthy eating and discourages junk food, without forcing their own meals as the only allowed solution.
Don’t throw the word “fascist” around so lightly. It devalues both your argument and the word itself.
The School is in charge of my children from 9-3, in loco parentis. I am happy with them making collective decisions with a view to what is best for the school as a whole.
My children may not enjoy a particular lesson but damn right they have to attend anyway. I shouldn’t have the right to take them out of maths, english or even sex education. the same is true of meal times (outside of the provisos I laid out previously)
If they think they can have the greatest effect on the well-being of the children by putting such a system in place then carry on. I don’t feel the need to micromanage what they do.
If the school is getting kickbacks from a catering company then of course that needs to be stopped. But that is different question entirely.
That could be a reasonable solution. (though equally as “fascist” by your definition) However I could imagine cases where this leads to a drain on school resources having to police lunchboxes and in fact leading to a greater amount of interference to the home life of that family. I’d think the blanket ban is easier to enforce and gives the school greater control over the educational element of nutrition.
It gives the message that they are food nazis and children are not to eat anything the school deems fit to ban. The idea that the school is providing good nutritious food is a joke starting with the chocolate milk they serve and ending with the chicken nuggets.
Yes, you do. Any time you assert something that is contrary to the accepted facts in a debate, you have provide evidence that it is true. And if there is conflicting evidence, we are free to choose.
The idea that there is no burden of proof to claim something is false is just lazy rhetoric used by people who can’t defend their positions. I can claim right now that you aren’t a human being. I have the burden of proof to show it false, not you for proving it true, as the common perception is that you are human. Y
Back on topic: The problem is that a teacher’s acting in loco parentis works because parents as a group have decided to turn some powers over to the state. Based on the fact that most schools allow children to bring their own lunches, what a child eats is not in the parental rights that have been turned over.
And why should it be? Unlike the other things a teacher does, it’s not something we can’t do. The entire purpose of public education is to provide education to all children, because not all parents can provide that. And it has a built-in opt out system for parents who want their child to learn differently. Why should a parent have to give up child’s entitlement to a free education just to be able to decide what their child eats? Has that 2004 law been challenged when it comes to what the parent provides?
I mean, in what other social situation are you required by an outside for to eat only their food? School doesn’t have to be a business to recognize that every restriction provided by the school is also one that businesses sometimes enforce. But when have you seen a business that has food requirements? It’s definitely something that we as a people seem to feel very strongly about, not even allowing the workplace to usurp those rights.
It really does boil down to who is the boss of our children. The teacher is ideally only boss when we can’t be. This is not one of those times.
But actually some parents can provide those “other things” that a teacher does. Also, some parents (many, in some situations) are unable to feed their children healthy food.
So that point doesn’t stand.
for the greater good? the same reason there is a standard curriculum, uniform and expected behaviour.
errrrrr…Theme parks? Cinemas? Theatres?
During school hours? the school is the boss. It can’t reasonably be run any other way.
None of which are essential for one’s future, nor every day things. Education is.
You claim it’s “for the greater good”, but how? If a child brings their own lunch how does that hurt the other kids?
In my school you could bring your own lunch, buy a school lunch, or (if you couldn’t afford the school lunch, or your own lunch) get a free or reduced lunch.
I had the free lunch usually, but occasionally I’d be able to bring something I liked for my own lunch. How was I harmed?
But that’s not the rubric by which traditionally parental roles are taken over by the schools. It’s not what parents can’t do, it’s what they don’t do. Too many parents weren’t teaching their kids about sex, so schools started to do it. Too many parents weren’t teaching their kids to drive, so schools started doing it. Too many parents weren’t teaching their kids to budget and balance a checkbook, so schools have started doing it.
In this case, at this school, the principal thought too many parents weren’t providing their children with healthy lunches, so the school started to do it.
Of course, the analogy would suggest that the school should teach about nutrition, not force kids to eat the school’s food.
Forcing a certain diet is different in kind from forcing a child to learn a certain subject. That’s not to say the school cannot legitimately do it, or shouldn’t. But I think it has to acknowledged that this goes beyond the traditional school model. (Even PE is closer to teaching content than this is, since you actually have to do the movements to learn them.)
What we eat has long been a central issue for human belief systems. Religions go on and on about it. It is a pretty core parental liberty to control what a child eats. There’s a non-frivolous case to be made that a policy dictating a particular diet in schools violates the parents’ substantive due process rights. But most federal circuits, including the Seventh I believe, have been pretty reluctant to uphold parental rights when there’s any rational argument to be made that the school policy is in the child’s interest. So I wouldn’t bet on a court vindicating the parent in such a case.