Backpack checks? Osgood Conklin can expect a horde of lawyers to descend on him and the school board.
It probably has some limited exceptions, but that’s not really relevant to my point. Well, unless one of the grounds for exception is “take this illiberal toss and shove it.”
I imagine in the US “my kid needs a kosher meal” would be an exception the school would have to grant. If they have to effing let in kids who are not vaccinated because someone has a religious objection to a vaccine, then they better allow a religious exemption from the school food. It would be a “religious freedom” issue, which might not wash in the UK, I don’t know.
When I worked at my son’s preschool, most of the kid’s lunches were really healthy. There was one family, though that sent just awful crap. One day, they had Snack-pack puddings, Little Debbie oatmeal cookies, and Kool-Aid jammers, and that was it. Sometimes they’d get a big bag full of sugary cereal, a canned fruit cup, and packaged peanut butter crackers. On a good day, they had those “uncrustables,” packaged PBJ sandwiches, and packaged apple slices, and “Trix” yogurt. They always had a bunch of stuff that wasn’t kosher, but we’d look they other way. The family had four kids, and I think they went to Sam’s club, and bought a bunch of individually packaged stuff, like canned fruit, bagged apple slices, cookies, chips, “uncrustables,” and yogurt in bulk, and then just threw stuff into a bag until it looked like enough. Or maybe the kids made their own lunches, because sometimes they had candy.
The principal had several meetings with the kids’ parents, and after that, for maybe three days, they’d have homemade sandwiches that consisted of two slices on Wonder bread, and an American “cheese” single, fresh fruit like grapes, that didn’t need cutting, juice boxes that had real juice, but still a bag of chips.
Anyway, that was four kids over six years, out of the whole school, that really needed nutritional intervention. So I understand concerns about wanting to give kids good food,** but I think the reason these kids weren’t getting it was that there were four kids and two parents both with full-time jobs.** I’m pretty sure that even without needing a subsidy, these kids are now (they’re all in elementary school, except the oldest, who is probably in jr. high) eating school lunches, because it’s even easier to go online and put $20 in each kids lunch account, than it is to throw a bunch of packaged stuff into a bag.
What is the difference between accomodation and exception? Is it that they will make food tailored for those with allergies and food requirements, or that they will allow those kids to bring their food? Because if the later, then that’s no difference than an exception.
I’m sure it means special food. It also probably means crappy food. I don’t know how they’ll get kosher food, unless they’re going to have a Jewish school that serves food pack meals for them, or serve kosher meals-ready-to-eat from the military. For allergies, they are probably just going to have a “clean” room, or area, where they keep special ingredients. Good luck if they have a kid with galactosemia. They’re going to have to read labels very carefully, and since they’ll probably have just one area, the “allergy” meal will probably accommodate all allergies and intolerances, so it will be wheat, dairy, soy and peanut/tree nut free, without strawberries, and whatever other fruit allergy they might have that year. Kids who come from vegetarian families may just be told “tough luck.”
I have no idea. The details as given in the article are the ones I shared in my earlier post. It is all very vague. I would also point out that this story was covered in exactly two places online: the Daily Mail, and an ITV site. I’m skeptical of the whole thing, and digging for specific details will get you nowhere, because there are none.
Details are sketchy, yes. I wouldn’t dismiss the story out of hand, though, because it’s quite in keeping with other things that happen in UK schools - lunch box inspections are fairly common, for example. One of my kids actually got in trouble for having a small bag of baked cheese-flavoured crackers in his lunch (Mini Cheddars, for those in the UK). Or rather, his mother did, and while I may have any number of disagreements with his mother, she’s a good mother and doesn’t feed him crap.
THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS:eek:
But we will accommodate special needs.:dubious:
Dude. Unnecessary.
I’m late to respond and I since my little quip (above) was simply rude for the sake of humor (as Ms. Whatsit pointed out) I wanted to provide a more detailed rendition of my perspective on the matter. Some of my ideas were only briefly touched upon by other contributors in the last 4 pages of responses, but I think they bear reiteration and emphasis:
Several other people have raised the ‘don’t you want your children to be healthy?’ issue. Yes, governments want healthy children (and adults, for that matter) because healthy kids tend to grow up (while unhealthy kids can more frequently die) and they tend to grow up to stay healthy and contribute to a work force, thereby earning money, money that is taxed (in various ways), taxes that pay for politicians’ salaries and administrators’ wages (which gets taxed…), and infrastructure projects that benefit the general populace in all sorts of ways. In the United States, this is fulfillment of that silly part of the preamble to the Constitution that talks about promoting the general well-being of the populace.
The core issue for me isn’t the inference that I’m not giving my kid decent meals. The core issue is that my kid’s classmate, whose parents insist on having ‘the freedom to make the appropriate decisions for their child without interference,’ isn’t getting fed the kind of food that helps him sit still and concentrate and learn. And even assuming I don’t give a $#!+ about that kid (which isn’t really true) or that I’m happy my kid can excel while that classmate flounders, (which is even less true) the reality and practice of the situation is that my kid’s classmate is going to be disrupting class and/or school because he can’t concentrate, sit still, and/or keep up with the rest of class. And those disruptions are going to negatively affect the teacher and all the classmates, including my kid. It’s actually in my best interest to somehow see to it that my kids classmate(s) get decent meals so they can stop impeding my kid’s educational achievement so that my kid can grow up to be a multi-billionaire nanotechnology engineer rather than an impoverished sanitary engineer (like Ralph Kramden) because I’m expecting my kid to take care of me when i get old. 
Should I supply kid’s classmate with extra food? How many kids can/should I do that for? Should I somehow encourage or force that kid’s parent’s to supply (better) food? If they don’t have the knowledge or funds or will to do so, how can I get them to comply?
On the other hand, the district/state/provincial/governmental school administrators are tasked with the job of maximizing the results of money spent on education - structures, curricula, teachers, administrators, etcetera. As part of that mission, I can see that making sure every kid is decently fed (or at least has the opportunity; one can only twist an arm so far before it breaks) can be considered part of the educational mission. And since the school or its food service administration has the ability to bargain for train-load rates on healthy ingredients and/or subcontract out to specialty companies whose capitalist interest is in getting better prices than I could ever get on healthy ingredients, there’s a good chance they can cook up a scheme to make feeding all the attending students pay off in better knowledge acquisition, test scores, etc. for less money than it takes to berate and harass parents who are unable or unwilling to provide good education-promoting meals for their kid(s). And by providing that for a predetermined steady 95% of the student population (or whatever percentage can be expected to attend school on an average day) they can probably save even more money while also dropping the stigma of hand-outs for the poor kids.
There’s a parallel in the popular return to school uniforms (even outside of religious schools): The parents are relieved that they no longer have to spend a fortune to help their kids compete on fashions that are going to be out-of-style in several weeks and/or outgrown in just a couple months and their kids wear the same kind of uniform every school day (probably five sets, but it’s the same with no variation) so nobody sticks out as too poor to afford the latest trendy garbage. Make sure every kid has the chance to eat a standardized level of nutritious food each day and you remove poverty as a factor in a kid’s, his class’, his school’s achievement. [Of course there are many others but that one, which can be addressed pretty easily, becomes a ‘controlled-for’ variable.]
And this, unfortunately, is where my support for the idea breaks down. I’d be 100% in favor of a GOOD nanny state. In fact, it irritated me when they stopped offering Drivers’ Ed and Health Ed and I’d really like it if basic economics (how to balance a monthly budget, how to understand the value of different products (e.g. revereware vs caphalon) at a retailer) was brought back as a required course. But at least here in the Untied States, even the Nanny State efforts are corrupted by partisan interests. This is the country which, for the purpose of minimizing costs in school lunches (all of them, not just the free ones) declared that ketchup qualifies as a vegetable in fulfilling the balanced meal requirement that is required of the Department of Education’s school lunch programs. This is the country where schools eagerly subcontracted the cafeteria offerings out to Taco Bell and supplements their strained budgets by putting vending machines on campus in order to reap 25% of the proceeds. The lack of consistency in making GOOD decisions where student nutrition is involved is the deal breaker for this proposal.
Anecdote FWIW: When I was in elementary and Jr. high school, I worked in the cafeteria. The meals that were served were trucked in from a central production facility that served all of the schools in the district (maybe throughout the city or county, I dunno) and stored in steamer carts that went all the way to the ceiling!:eek: [Okay, so maybe they were only about six feet tall; I said that when was 7 and short for my age as well.] Today I think they truck a lot of stuff in and use microwave ovens instead of steam-drawer units.
I would because the nutrition and basic sustenance issue is broader than just my kid, my family, and even my community. [See above] But then again, I’m that kind of a bleeding-heart guy.
–G!
Remember: The equipment you use was supplied by the lowest bidder.
–Part of a list of advice to Army infantry.
Remember: The meals you are eating are supplied by the lowest bidder.
–Corollary for school cafeterias.
Quoted for reiteration. There’s a bit of an “OMG! I can’t believe this is happening in AMERICA!” vibe in this thread. Probably the SDMB isn’t even a sensible place to have this particular discussion.
It’s (slowly) happening in America, too. The UK report spawned the discussion, but we’re having the same discussion over here on this side of the pond as well, on the playground and at our dinner tables. i don’t think our cultures and diets are so different that we can’t talk about the theory at once, and there have been frequent notes that there are shades of differences r/t NHS relevance, types of food offered, etc.
Our food cultures and diets aren’t all that different - our institutional cultures are (including education system and ancillary services)
This is unfortunately true. Just the stuff that gets thrown away untouched at my kids lunchroom every day could easily feed probably 100 people. Hungry grown-ups. I’d wager that 50% of everything gets trashed. It’s very wasteful.
I would approve, if the “healthy wholesome free lunch” was available to 100% of kids. I think the lazy parents and the cash strapped parents that are copping out with Doritos and Skittles or whatever they have on hand, would be happy to take the laziness and/or cheapness to the next level and just let someone else (the school) take up the slack. They can pat themselves on the back and think, hey - kiddo gets a hot, healthy meal every day! I’m getting it done here as a parent, despite my circumstances!
I think the only parents that would STILL pack their kids a lunch under those circumstances are probably just improving on the school’s offerings. Their kid is picky, has allergies, different dietary needs, etc., or they want kiddo eating only organic, locally sourced, superior ingredients. Either way, the lunch they pack is probably just as good or better than the freebie. And their kid is likely to eat it.
Not many parents go out of their way to deliberately pack a crap lunch when better lunches are available for free and no effort involved on their part.
I wonder how the lunches my Mom packed for me in grade school would measure up…
In this country all kids eat their school lunch in their classrooms from elementary school through junior high school. The only time students bring in packed lunches are on days when, for whatever reason, there is no school lunch on offer.
School lunches are varied, healthy, and delicious. They usually consist of rice, a protein, a vegetable side/salad, soup, and milk. Sometimes a dessert or other treat is also given, usually in the form of fruit, but occasionally ice cream or pudding. This is a typical elementary school lunch.
Schools publish monthly menus in advance and the menus include lists of ingredients used and basic nutritional information. Meals are generally planned with student allergies in mind, but occasionally substitutions are made. Cities provide assistance to families who are unable to pay for school lunches, which generally cost 200-300 yen (2-3 USD) per meal.
Students are encouraged (if not outright required) to eat everything they are provided, whether they like it or not. Easier teachers might see that they are given only a half serving of whatever it is they dislike, but they still have to eat what they are given. Some kids (and the occasional teacher!) may grump about it, but the result is that you don’t see nearly as many picky eaters. In the several years I worked in the school system, I never once saw food go to waste.
Personally, I think this kind of system is awesome and would love to see it implemented back home. I also really wish I still worked at a school because I miss the ultra cheap lunches. 
The egg salad sandwich mine sent, sitting at room temperature all day, would probably be a problem today.
My sandwiches contained lunchmeat, sandwich cheese, and mustard.
A few posters were wondering about the specifics of the ban beyond the ITV page or the Daily Fail, so let’s inject some cold hard facts. This from my local,
[quotes the headteacher who implemented the ban]
(Most East Lancs kids happy with change to fresh-cooked school meals | Lancashire Telegraph):
Another headteacher opposed the ban and instead thought that reminders were the solution to this problem;
My mom sent me with homemade ground peanut butter with honey on homemade whole wheat bread from wheat she ground in the basement mill my father made for her.
Whenever possible, I traded it away for Jif and grape jelly on Wonderbread.