You're too incompetent to feed your own children....

You remember how fired up we got about the private (or was it charter?) school that would only allow parents to pack certain things in their child's lunch? Well, a Chicago area school has now decided that parents aren't responsible enough to pack any lunches at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...ade-lunches-the-latest-in-national-food-fight

Only students with food allergies will be allowed to bring lunches from home. The rest of the kids are required to eat the school-provided lunches to ensure they only eat "healthy" food.

There are two obvious problems with this:
1. Who the H*ll do you think you are that you can tell me what I can or cannot feed my child!????

2. When was the last time someone actually served a healthy lunch at school?

I can't tell you how thankful I am that no government overlord tells me what my kiddos can eat. And that they have genuinely healthy, whole, natural foods for lunch that are prepared with their specific dietary needs in mind.


[p.s. I find it interesting that the article doesn't mention kiddos with faith-based diets. I don't know if they're included in the exception, as it only mentions allergies. But could you imagine if they served that lunch to the Jews and Muslims!]

 

What gets me is that schools FAIL to see the connections between reduced recess, the meals they are serving (lots of carbs and optional salad and veggies) and the health of the children. I can't tell you how many times my kids watched cartoons at school instead of playing outside, and on several instances it was because there were puddles on the playground, not because the weather was incliment.

And, at least in our local ps, the school thinks they are 'saving' the kids from their horribly uneducated and alcoholic parents. They are so caught up in the idea that they are miracle workers that they forget most parents are completely capable of raising their own children. We used to get home these fliers about being better parents: reading to our children, managing our anger, etc etc. Used to make me both laugh and feel irritated. Parents who don't pay attention to their kids, and could use the advice, won't read it. For the rest of us, it's just insulting.

 

You know I am angry and I am not even American. I looked closely at this ideal lunch they are passing out. Canned pears? =Sugar
Processed Cheese= garbage
No idea if those are supposed to be tater tots or some greyish fish type thing they have on the fork. Looks unappealing at best.
White bread hot dog bun with a slice of deli meat. Um..sulphites and nutritionally ambiguous.
Seems to me it would make way more sense to come up with a list of healthful foods that were acceptable to pack. Or make a list of foods you don't want in the school. Afterall they already do to a certain extent at some school by limiting allergy inducing foods like nuts.
Scary to think the schools get to tell parents yet again that they can't do their job right and they can do one step better.
Lets not forget too that carrying lunch money to school has long been proven to be a bad idea. Let's give money to the lunch yard bullies or worse. And even if they did it with a punch card system what if Little Susy lost hers, go hungry? And that whole line eat our food or go hungry? Don't they realize starvation can trigger obesity too? Seems like a system doomed to backfire or at the very least tick some people off. And I am reallllllllllllly glad I homeschool.

 

I saw this article too and was shocked! Not only didn't it address religious dietary concerns, but what of those who follow vegan, gluten-free, etc? Not to mention kids with sensory issues who may be "set off" by certain textures or consistencies. And then you will simply have picky kids (I should know, I was one) who will refuse to eat. How does the school expect any learning to get done if the child hasn't eaten since breakfast?
There are also families out there that can't afford the price for a school lunch and don't qualify for free/reduced meal. What then?
Another example of the government raising our kids because we can't be trusted to do it.

 

OK, so now you are telling me that the dog food they feed our children is healthier for them than the food parents can pack for them? This is just sad! And yes I meant to say dog food, I watched a news segment a while ago that showed how the "meat" they use in our children's lunches (chicken patties, hot dogs, that kind of stuff) is the same "meat" that is used in dog food production. Technically it is safe for human consumption, however if any human saw it sitting on a shelf they'd refuse to eat it because it doesn't look tasty, and I'm not convinced that it's nutritious at all.

 

Outrageous! Did you see what the principal of the school said?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...estrictions-041120110410,0,2614451,full.story

"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

Excellent quality? What a crock!

 

Did any of you follow that blog done by a teacher who made herself eat the school lunches for a whole year? She was appalled by what she had to eat and I remember being grossed out a number of times. I must say that even if the foods were wonderful I think they are way out of line to try to dictate to parents. They need to get over themselves and remember that the parents are in charge of their children not the state.

 

I read that article yesterday and I was so angry. I still have one teen in PS and I pulled my younger son out after last year. I was so sick of the condescending attitude of the teachers and administrators because they were "educators", which was always said in an arrogant way implying they knew more than lowly parents. Now they think they can tell parents they *have* to buy the school lunch every day? When I pulled my son out of PS, my mom wasn't really on board and one of her first questions was "What about lunch?". I laughed and said, "You haven't seen a school lunch recently, have you?"

 

I was a sub last year and the year before and I only made the mistake of lazily neglecting to pack a lunch ONCE. After that one, single exposure to a school lunch, I didn't care if I had to get up at 4 am to go grocery shopping first, I packed my lunch.

Another thoughts: what about kiddos with super high metabolisms? My oldest is supposed to (per the doctor) eat at least 2,000 calories a day. That's normal for an adult... not an 8 year old. You can't make blanket nutritional decisions for a few hundred kids and not expect some of them to suffer.

 

When did the schools decide that they need to raise our kids instead of helping them learn. IMO, they don't need to be teaching s*x ed, drug prevention, or anything else that the family should be taking care of.

Even when they do these programs to try to prevent bad things from happening, it doesn't mean much when the home life that some kids live with screams the opposite. The only way kids are really going to learn the right way to live is to see it on a day to day basis at home. The schools are spinning their wheels.

The same goes for food. Even if the food they served was nutritious, it wouldn't make a change in the kids' diets at home.

 

Here's the school's contact information if you'd like to (politely) express your opinion on their new overlord policy.

Little Village Academy
2620 S Lawndale Ave
Chicago, IL 60623

Website

 

I saw this yesterday and was outraged by the article. Then I talked to my mom who works in the cafeteria at a school in Missouri. She was furious that they don't have enough paper products for the kids for the remainder of the year and can't get more. However, they have spent over $400 for the school board member meeting on Wednesday night. They are fixing prime rib and shrimp cocktails for them. The cafeteria has also run out of fruits and veggies several times this year for various reasons so they were serving beans as the veggie. I told her that I thought it sounded as though an anonymous tip needed to be sent to a news source. It is crazy what the public schools are doing these days and makes me forever grateful that I am able to still homeschool my children.

 

This quote made me particularly mad as well. I actually did have school lunch with my children several times, and not ONE child in our ps brought a coke. Not one. And these aren't upper-middle-class children, mind you. These are just kids of working-class and poor families. Now- I will say I saw some horrendous snacks pulled out in my dd's preschool class, but I can't say if it was an 'off' day for those parents or not. But no soda.

In fact, even when I was in ps, living with a father who didn't care whether I ate or not half the time, I got all my soda from the school vending machine

 

When we lean on the government to take care of one aspect, how can we not expect them to want to take care of more? We give them the power, then yell when the exercise it.

 

I am not saying I am at ALL on board with much of anything the PS system does, I am just saying that 'we' say here, teach them. But don't teach them these certain things, or don't try to make decisions concerning their health, etc. It is very hard to keep control of other areas when we beg them to take control of some areas.
I would just as soon the govt. not know I exist, so I am against any and all rules/regulations/laws that will give them even an inkling of power over any part of my and my childrens' existence.

 

I am posting something that came out several years ago. It's a satire, based on an incident in the hs'ing community. But maybe there's more truth in it than we realized....

Homefeeding Children: Threat or Menace?
By Lydia McGrew
CNSNews.com Satire
June 12, 2002

The recent tragic death from malnutrition of seven-year-old Johnny Marfan of Bensonville draws our attention to the growing trend toward so-called "homefeeding."


While the majority of the local children still receive their nutrition from state cafeterias or approved, registered private
cafeterias, a growing minority of parents - hundreds by some estimates - are engaged in homefeeding, a practice in which children receive at least breakfast and dinner in their own homes as provided
by their parents.

In accordance with law, the Marfans informed the state health department that they were homefeeding Johnny. But in this state, homefeeding is relatively unregulated, giving carte blanch to parents to feed their children virtually any food under the sun; meat, milk, cookies, butter, pie - anything goes.

Some states require parents to have a certified degree in nutrition or at least be monitored by an accredited nutritionist. But here, parents do not even have to fill out periodic reports detailing what they are feeding their children.

Opponents of homefeeding argue that parents like the Marfans used homefeeding as a cover for abuse and neglect, with terrible results. While this remains in question, we've seen nothing to disprove this.

Calista Nicole-Carson of the state Department of Cafeterias and Caloric Monitoring says, "I realize that there are conscientious parents who genuinely try to feed their children what they need. But they should have no objection to filling out the forms we are
introducing, describing each of the meals they give."

That seems a reasonable step in safeguarding our most precious resource - our children. "Pro-active steps are necessary to insure we are protecting all children," says Nicole-Carson. "It is ridiculous not to monitor what all children are fed because of a misguided concern for 'privacy' or 'freedom,' and such lack of regulation allows children to slip fatally through the cracks."

Other critics are concerned about parents' lack of necessary qualifications. "Every year we make new nutritional discoveries," says Dr. Sue d'Panzoff of the University of Omasota. "Parents cannot possibly keep up with each breakthrough in nutritional science and
give their children these benefits."

It's preposterous for us to leave such vital functions to amateurs who claim authority based on something as flimsy as parenthood, particularly in the realm of keeping pace with nutritional advances.

"Who knows what changes we may need to make next year to improve children's nutrition," asks d'Panzoff. "At a minimum, homefeeding programs must be carefully monitored in the domicile to make sure all
the latest advances are represented."

Still others point out the social skills homefed children are missing. Ms. Nicole-Carson tells us, "During meals at the public cafeterias, these children watch educational videos about crucial subjects like the environment, sex, and the evils of capitalism. The
food itself is culturally diversified, and each day the children are taught a different set of table manners from another culture around the world."

Homefeeders rely in large part on outmoded history in defending their decision to place their own children out of the mainstream.

"As recently as 1992, the majority of children in the United States were homefed," says Philip Flicka, of the right-wing Home Food Legal Defense Association. "Even when kids went to school, they were
allowed to bring lunches packed by their moms."

Whether Mr. Flicka is right or not, it seems that homefeeding is here to stay, consequences be damned. But we cannot be too vigilant.


Homefeeders of good will should, as Ms. Nicole-Carson says, be entirely open to having their homes and programs monitored by qualified nutritionists for the good of our children.

Any small amount of time and privacy this costs parents will be more than repaid in lives saved. If the Marfans had been properly monitored, Johnny would still be alive.

There is nothing more valuable than the life and safety of a child, and for that reason, strictures on homefeeding must be tightened in this state.

 

Well, whomever brought up money seems to be right. A friend who lives in Chicago (and who has no children, therefore no ulterior motive or bias) shared the following with me:

First, here are a couple of links about the nutritional concerns surrounding Chicago's schools lunches:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-09-02/news/0909010496_1_school-lunches-cps-lunch-food
http://www.prairie.org/programs/caf...re-school-lunches-setting-kids-poor-nutrition

And he made the following comment, for which I've requested documentation and I will report back when he provides it.

 

Reading this I suddenly thought of Oliver Twist. "More please Sir?' The implications that the fat cats (teacher meetings) eat higher on the hog then the children they supposedly care so much about is disturbing to say the least.

 

I wouldn't let my kids eat that JUNK! I don't know about other schools but our school has been known to serve worms in their greenbeans.. A friend of mine ate with her child and found maggots. YUCK!!!!!! To say the least.

 

No. The TEACHER MEETINGS aren't eating high on the hog. It's the BOARD MEETINGS. Big difference!