You have to look at the untold back story. The reason this is going on is because the government comes out with a study that says, school kids are eating junk.
And the parents yell, “WHY DOES THE SCHOOL LET MY JUNIOR EAT JUNK!”
You can’t win. If they leave them be, they get yelled for not checking. If they check they’re cafeteria Nazis.
The untold back story is that the John Locke Foundation (a right-wing libertarian type organization), which is the publisher of the journal the original story was in, has for years been trying to get rid of the pre-k program that this kid is enrolled in. It’s basically a Head Start program and the kids in the pre-k are at particular risk for lagging behind their peers in school, mostly for economic reasons or learning disabilities. The battle over the program has heated up in the past year because the (newly) Republican-dominated state legislature drastically cut funding, then a court ruling said that the state would have to re-instate funding. In my opinion, the publication of this story is an effort to discredit the program and to kick up the outrage-meter, in an effort to get public backing for the dismantling of the program.
Now that’s interesting…
As described, it sounds perfectly sensible to me. Kids need proper nourishment in order to develop and learn.
If the kids are showing up without an adequate lunch (be it down to poverty, cluelessness, or whatever) supplementation fills an actual need.
Even well-intentioned parents can fail when it comes to packing a proper lunch. The lunches my own mother packed for me in elementary school were astonishingly bad, although I know she was proud of what a thoughtful and loving lunch she prepared.
The formula was: Sandwich, fruit, treat, drink. Doesn’t sound so bad, right? Well, apart from the fruit it was a steady diet of crap. The sandwiches, every day, were:[ul][li]Peanut butter and Marshmallow Fluff[]Nutella and Marshmallow Fluff[]Kraft Lemon Cheez and Marshmallow Fluff[]Nutella and Peanut Butter[]Etc.[/ul][/li]Fruit - Apple, orange, or banana. (Fair dinkum.)
Treat:[ul][li]Wagon Wheel[]Chocolate Bar[]Twinkie[]Ding Dong[]Giant Cookie[]Jelly Roll[]Chocolate Roll[/ul][/li]
Drink: [ul][li]Pop[]Capri Sun[]Super Socco[/ul][/li]
This actually didn’t work out too bad for me, because I was usually able to trade items with the Itialian and Portuguese neighbourhood kids, whose parents would most likely be horrified to learn what their spectacular sandwiches of meat, cheese, and fresh veggies on Portuguese buns, pita, focaccia, or other varieties of Holy-crap-this-ain’t-Wonder-Bread.
If I ate the lunch my mom packed for me every day until I was old enough to pack my own, I would probably have the obesity, diabetes, and heart disease that killed her. I was able to look after myself (and not because I had any clear ideas about nutrition, but because I was sick of the monotony. Lots of other kids aren’t going to be so fortunate (or inclined.)
A little oversight of lunches seems all to the good to me, and I find it baffling that some people find this sinister. “Here, kid - you need a little protein with that.” “Look out! Fascism!” :rolleyes:
You can tell if a child has a lunch if the child has a lunch. It doesn’t require an inspection.
Actually that’s exactly what they’re doing. They’re stopping children and inspecting their lunch. There was nothing voluntary about it and it wasn’t a singular event.
There is no difference between a kid showing up and getting inspected and an inspector showing up at your house.
And I seriously doubt your mother packed anything worse than chicken nuggets in your lunch.
[QUOTE=Magiver;14787896There was nothing voluntary about it and it wasn’t a singular event.[/QUOTE]
It is voluntary, because this is a program that the parents have to apply for to have their kids attend and for which they also pay partial tuition. This pre-k program is not mandatory and only kids who apply to get in and meet the requirements are allowed to attend. If you sign your kid up for this and are told that part of the program is that the lunches will be checked and certain nutritional requirements will be in effect, then either get on board or don’t put your child in the program.
[quote=“Larry_Mudd, post:44, topic:613041”]
[li]Kraft Lemon Cheez and Marshmallow Fluff[/li][/QUOTE]
What on earth is Kraft Lemon Cheez?
So, to your way of thinking the only right and proper thing to do when its observed that a student is bringing a bag of slim-jims and pixie sticks for lunch every day is to shrug it off, even though all the research shows that this will put the kid at a severe academic disadvantage? Instead, right-thinking people will sink more resources into summer school, extra parent-teacher counselling, etc - and then still bank on the kid doing poorly?
There was no exaggeration there. No vegetables represented, ever. No protein. It’s not just about physical health - a diet like this is not be good for brain development.
Vaguely lemon-flavoured bright yellow sugar paste. I think it was discontinued decades ago because most people had the sense to realize it wasn’t fit for human consumption.
I would interpret your view as one where we serve the government versus the government serving us.
Oh dear. But where does the “cheez” part come in?
I’m guessing that whey byproduct was the bulk.
:dubious: Ever heard of Seinfeld? Have some respect for Jewish comedians. No [del]soup[/del] internet for you.
I view it as we are the government, and we decide how much we want to participate, and in what way.
This was in the seventies and early eighties, before the dairy lobby gave us legislation to limit what could be called “cheese”. I think they called it that because its texture was similar ti Cheek Whiz. It had no milk ingredients.
How is signing up for a program with rules and then following the rules serving the government? Nobody is forcing them to be there. Those parents could have chosen not to enroll their children in this VOLUNTARY program. They could have heard about the inspectors and thought, “You know what, I really don’t want them criticizing my lunch-making skills. I’m outta here.” No, interestingly, what they did was to enroll their child, knowing the rules, then call the local rightwing lobbyists with an ax to grind when the rules went into effect.
And what about the fact that nutrition is critical to academic performance?
I wouldn’t want someone snooping all up and through my kid’s lunchbox. But it seems to me if schools are expected to accommodate kids with dangerous food allergies, then some oversight is necessary. A “no peanut butter” rule is useless unless there’s enforcement.
Since this thread seems a little more active than the other one, I’ll bring my question over here:
Frankly, in my opinion, the school shouldn’t deal with that. At most, maybe the teacher or school can send home basic nutrition information to the parents or possibly mention it to the parents at the parent conference if the food choices seem to be affecting behavior or schoolwork. Other than that, nothing.
First, if my kid is behaving well and doing well on his schoolwork, it’s nobody else’s business what I’m feeding him. Second, from what I’ve seen at my kids’ school, most teachers are pretty clueless about what constitutes “good nutrition”. Healthy snack ideas, sent home by the teacher, include goldfish crackers, go-gurts, juice, and granola bars.
The case in question is completely different, though. These kids are at-risk, most likely because they come from poor families who are possibly unable to feed them much of anything, much less nutritiously balanced meals. The parents have voluntarily enrolled their children in this program so that they would be getting extra academic support as well as extra social support. The parents have signed up for this sort of monitoring, so that their children will be entering kindergarten up-to-speed with their peers.