Mother shamed for sending her child to school with oreos
Options
Replies
-
goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
As I understand it, funding is connected to the contents of the lunches the school serves, not the contents of lunches brought from home. (I'm in GA, so Colorado law may differ, but I'm pretty sure no such h federal regulations apply to lunches from home.)
I will have a problem with any law that attempts to link what I pack in my kid's lunch to school funding in an attempt to dictate what I can send to school.
Exactly.goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
As I understand it, funding is connected to the contents of the lunches the school serves, not the contents of lunches brought from home. (I'm in GA, so Colorado law may differ, but I'm pretty sure no such h federal regulations apply to lunches from home.)
I will have a problem with any law that attempts to link what I pack in my kid's lunch to school funding in an attempt to dictate what I can send to school.
It's not necessarily a law that mandates what you can pack, it's that a lot of schools who do follow the laws on what they serve make the rules at the schools uniform so that it's "fair" to everyone or easier to regulate.
Except life is not always fair. Why do kids have to have the same? Tastes are different. Home life is different. You can't make things 'fair' in everything.
Some kids get cell phones some don't. Some have elaborate birthday parties; others not so much. In P.E. class some kids run around with Nikes other kids wear Payless. Even when it comes to a school uniform, look at the shoes. The brands are different. Some kids get five uniforms to have one for each day. Other kids may have three or even one they must wash every night. Even further, some of those uniforms are brand new. While other kids get used.
Even in education. Some kids can handle more challenging tasks. Should they take a back seat and wait while others catch up? Or maybe the ones who need extra time should be rushed because more advanced kids are waiting.
Fair. Come on.0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
That's the problem! Why is the government making these guidelines? Where do they get the right? They are not the parents. People will gripe for the government to stay out of their beds, off their bodies, on and on. But it is perfectly okay to dictate what a parent can give his/her own children for school lunch? No, absolutely not.
The schools don't have to follow the guidelines if they don't take the government money...but then that translates to higher taxes and most people won't vote for that option. So, it is on the public if they don't want the government involved. I live in a school district with higher taxes and the only government funds they accept are for their nutrition programs because they provide free breakfast, lunches and snacks to kids in need and they even offer free breakfast, lunch, and snacks during the summer to anyone under the age of 18, or anyone with special needs, and they offer these same meals to adults for about $1.50 per meal, I believe. We still have Christmas and Easter breaks in our school district (gasp!) because of the limited involvement with the federal government. Don't want the government involved? Don't choose a government funded school. The woman in this story is taking advantage of a program that is essentially free day care paid for by...the government. If she doesn't want them telling her what to do, she is free to pay for another, non government funded, option.
That is her point, the tax dollars are taken out of the community, funneled through the federal government then Public schools are forced to either comply with their arbitrary guidelines or not receive the tax dollars that were taken from them to begin with.
Its all a power grab for the federal government, it's not about low income government funded programs these are Public schools
"Government money" isn't magical money that appears out of nowhere, its paid in by tax payers. You have to pay taxes then they make you jump through their specially selected hoops to get it back to fund programs in your own community. Does no one else see anything wrong with that?
Not all local tax money is funneled through the federal government. Our local property taxes are much higher than some surrounding areas and our sales taxes are also higher. Most of those dollars are funds allocated to the public schools and other programs that voters have agreed are important enough to spend the money on.
Yes, I think there are a lot of things wrong with how the government and things run in this country, but I also think there are a lot of things wrong with the people in this country. When a person can be given a gift (which is what I would call free day care) and then turn in to a media darling who is a VICTIM of SHAMING because someone dared address the rules they are expected to follow for accepting said gift, then we have a lot of problems as a society. The sense of entitlement and the lack of personal responsibility in this country is appalling. Oh no, someone wrote me a letter because I broke the rules? I'm a victim I say, a VICTIM!0 -
goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
As I understand it, funding is connected to the contents of the lunches the school serves, not the contents of lunches brought from home. (I'm in GA, so Colorado law may differ, but I'm pretty sure no such h federal regulations apply to lunches from home.)
I will have a problem with any law that attempts to link what I pack in my kid's lunch to school funding in an attempt to dictate what I can send to school.
It's not necessarily a law that mandates what you can pack, it's that a lot of schools who do follow the laws on what they serve make the rules at the schools uniform so that it's "fair" to everyone or easier to regulate.
You saidBecause there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
To me that clearly implies that the school has to police lunches from home or lose funding. I just wanted to point out that this is not the case.
I'm also pretty doubtful that "many" schools try to enforce the federal regulations about school lunch nutrition in lunches brought from home. The regulations are fairly entensive and not many schools are so over flowing with extra personnel that they can devote the time to going through every kid's lunch box. I'm unaware of any school that does this.
I am talking about public schools in here. Private schools are a different animal all together. Just so you know where I'm coming from. I was a private school teacher before I became a stay at home mom. My sister has been a public school teacher for more than a decade and my mom was a high school teacher for 25 years. I've spent a lot of time in and around schools.0 -
Well if it was the school policy and she was well aware of the policy to begin with she was in the wrong. On a personal note I just sent Ding Dongs with my kids to eat at at school today 1 each. Of course there is not a "Policy". Maybe I should be lined up and shot by the Ding Dong Police.0
-
Well if it was the school policy and she was well aware of the policy to begin with she was in the wrong. On a personal note I just sent Ding Dongs with my kids to eat at at school today 1 each. Of course there is not a "Policy". Maybe I should be lined up and shot by the Ding Dong Police.
That sounds...interesting and sticky. Do they shoot you with the creme filling?0 -
Well if it was the school policy and she was well aware of the policy to begin with she was in the wrong. On a personal note I just sent Ding Dongs with my kids to eat at at school today 1 each. Of course there is not a "Policy". Maybe I should be lined up and shot by the Ding Dong Police.
I agree. However the director of the school has said it is not school policy to tell parents what kids can and can not have for lunch.
Whatever the situation, think going to the media was an overreaction.
I sent a dollar with my kid today so she could buy an ice cream bar from the school. So does that make me evil or is it OK because it came from the school?
Edit for massive autocorrect fail. I've got to get a real keyboard and stop trying to use swipe.0 -
Well if it was the school policy and she was well aware of the policy to begin with she was in the wrong. On a personal note I just sent Ding Dongs with my kids to eat at at school today 1 each. Of course there is not a "Policy". Maybe I should be lined up and shot by the Ding Dong Police.
I agree. However the director of the school has said it is not school policy to tell parents what kids can and can not have for lunch.
Whatever the situation, think going to the media was an overreaction.
I sent a dollar with my kid today so she could buy an I've cream bar from the school. So for that make me evil or is our OK because it came from the school?
Nope. It makes you a great mom who wanted to give her child a treat. I like that. It's funny though a mom can give her child money for ice cream that the school sells and the school has a right to tell a mom she can't give her child cookies in her lunch from home. Irony. (I forgot that schools sell snacks and ice creams)0 -
goldfishgoo wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
As I understand it, funding is connected to the contents of the lunches the school serves, not the contents of lunches brought from home. (I'm in GA, so Colorado law may differ, but I'm pretty sure no such h federal regulations apply to lunches from home.)
I will have a problem with any law that attempts to link what I pack in my kid's lunch to school funding in an attempt to dictate what I can send to school.
Exactly.goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
As I understand it, funding is connected to the contents of the lunches the school serves, not the contents of lunches brought from home. (I'm in GA, so Colorado law may differ, but I'm pretty sure no such h federal regulations apply to lunches from home.)
I will have a problem with any law that attempts to link what I pack in my kid's lunch to school funding in an attempt to dictate what I can send to school.
It's not necessarily a law that mandates what you can pack, it's that a lot of schools who do follow the laws on what they serve make the rules at the schools uniform so that it's "fair" to everyone or easier to regulate.
Except life is not always fair. Why do kids have to have the same? Tastes are different. Home life is different. You can't make things 'fair' in everything.
Some kids get cell phones some don't. Some have elaborate birthday parties; others not so much. In P.E. class some kids run around with Nikes other kids wear Payless. Even when it comes to a school uniform, look at the shoes. The brands are different. Some kids get five uniforms to have one for each day. Other kids may have three or even one they must wash every night. Even further, some of those uniforms are brand new. While other kids get used.
Even in education. Some kids can handle more challenging tasks. Should they take a back seat and wait while others catch up? Or maybe the ones who need extra time should be rushed because more advanced kids are waiting.
Fair. Come on.
I don't disagree with you about fair. I hate the every kid's a winner and everyone gets a tropy and everyone's a special snowflake, blah, blah, blah stuff. People whining about fairness is why these things happen, though. We were talking about Oreo mom at work and one of my coworkers said that his daughter's school has a rule against cookies and stuff like that because it's not fair to the kids who's families can't afford them (he lives in an area with a lot of poverty). As I've posted before, my DDs school has a rule about them and they say it's for nutrition reasons to follow guidelines. As long as there's a parent whining that it's not fair (and often the D word - discimination is thrown around), then schools are going to have stupid rules to avoid stupid lawsuits or bad press.
If people weren't taught by our local media that they can get their 5 minutes of fame by making frivolous claims, then a lot of these stupid rules would probably go away. I remember a local school district that got bad press for withholding a high school student's grade card because a $25 fee due for an elective class hadn't been paid and it was over 6 months in to the school year. The mom ran to the media about how embarrassing this was for her child while declaring to the free world that she was a single mom and just couldn't come up with the $25 to pay for the class. Never mind that this was an elective class and the fees were known up front. Never mind that said mom was holding her iPhone and smoking a cigarette while she was talking about how poor she was. No, this is was news worthy and that is sad.
***ETA a missing word.0 -
ginny92802 wrote: »I think people should be more concerned that the adults teaching your children can't seem to put together a note that makes any kind of logical sense. That would worry me more than an oreo.
win!0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
That's the problem! Why is the government making these guidelines? Where do they get the right? They are not the parents. People will gripe for the government to stay out of their beds, off their bodies, on and on. But it is perfectly okay to dictate what a parent can give his/her own children for school lunch? No, absolutely not.
The schools don't have to follow the guidelines if they don't take the government money...but then that translates to higher taxes and most people won't vote for that option. So, it is on the public if they don't want the government involved. I live in a school district with higher taxes and the only government funds they accept are for their nutrition programs because they provide free breakfast, lunches and snacks to kids in need and they even offer free breakfast, lunch, and snacks during the summer to anyone under the age of 18, or anyone with special needs, and they offer these same meals to adults for about $1.50 per meal, I believe. We still have Christmas and Easter breaks in our school district (gasp!) because of the limited involvement with the federal government. Don't want the government involved? Don't choose a government funded school. The woman in this story is taking advantage of a program that is essentially free day care paid for by...the government. If she doesn't want them telling her what to do, she is free to pay for another, non government funded, option.
That is her point, the tax dollars are taken out of the community, funneled through the federal government then Public schools are forced to either comply with their arbitrary guidelines or not receive the tax dollars that were taken from them to begin with.
Its all a power grab for the federal government, it's not about low income government funded programs these are Public schools
"Government money" isn't magical money that appears out of nowhere, its paid in by tax payers. You have to pay taxes then they make you jump through their specially selected hoops to get it back to fund programs in your own community. Does no one else see anything wrong with that?
Not all local tax money is funneled through the federal government. Our local property taxes are much higher than some surrounding areas and our sales taxes are also higher. Most of those dollars are funds allocated to the public schools and other programs that voters have agreed are important enough to spend the money on.
Yes, I think there are a lot of things wrong with how the government and things run in this country, but I also think there are a lot of things wrong with the people in this country. When a person can be given a gift (which is what I would call free day care) and then turn in to a media darling who is a VICTIM of SHAMING because someone dared address the rules they are expected to follow for accepting said gift, then we have a lot of problems as a society. The sense of entitlement and the lack of personal responsibility in this country is appalling. Oh no, someone wrote me a letter because I broke the rules? I'm a victim I say, a VICTIM!
Do you have some evidence that the family in this story doesn't pay any taxes, and is therefore not contributing to the public funds that make programs like this possible? Military families in NC qualified for Head Start programs like this preschool program, and they were certainly employed and paying their taxes.0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
That's the problem! Why is the government making these guidelines? Where do they get the right? They are not the parents. People will gripe for the government to stay out of their beds, off their bodies, on and on. But it is perfectly okay to dictate what a parent can give his/her own children for school lunch? No, absolutely not.
The schools don't have to follow the guidelines if they don't take the government money...but then that translates to higher taxes and most people won't vote for that option. So, it is on the public if they don't want the government involved. I live in a school district with higher taxes and the only government funds they accept are for their nutrition programs because they provide free breakfast, lunches and snacks to kids in need and they even offer free breakfast, lunch, and snacks during the summer to anyone under the age of 18, or anyone with special needs, and they offer these same meals to adults for about $1.50 per meal, I believe. We still have Christmas and Easter breaks in our school district (gasp!) because of the limited involvement with the federal government. Don't want the government involved? Don't choose a government funded school. The woman in this story is taking advantage of a program that is essentially free day care paid for by...the government. If she doesn't want them telling her what to do, she is free to pay for another, non government funded, option.
That is her point, the tax dollars are taken out of the community, funneled through the federal government then Public schools are forced to either comply with their arbitrary guidelines or not receive the tax dollars that were taken from them to begin with.
Its all a power grab for the federal government, it's not about low income government funded programs these are Public schools
"Government money" isn't magical money that appears out of nowhere, its paid in by tax payers. You have to pay taxes then they make you jump through their specially selected hoops to get it back to fund programs in your own community. Does no one else see anything wrong with that?
Not all local tax money is funneled through the federal government. Our local property taxes are much higher than some surrounding areas and our sales taxes are also higher. Most of those dollars are funds allocated to the public schools and other programs that voters have agreed are important enough to spend the money on.
Yes, I think there are a lot of things wrong with how the government and things run in this country, but I also think there are a lot of things wrong with the people in this country. When a person can be given a gift (which is what I would call free day care) and then turn in to a media darling who is a VICTIM of SHAMING because someone dared address the rules they are expected to follow for accepting said gift, then we have a lot of problems as a society. The sense of entitlement and the lack of personal responsibility in this country is appalling. Oh no, someone wrote me a letter because I broke the rules? I'm a victim I say, a VICTIM!
Do you have some evidence that the family in this story doesn't pay any taxes, and is therefore not contributing to the public funds that make programs like this possible? Military families in NC qualified for Head Start programs like this preschool program, and they were certainly employed and paying their taxes.
I wasn't trying to imply that they aren't paying taxes, but it is still a gift that most tax paying families don't receive. If it's not available to everyone who pays taxes, then it's a special benefit that is gifted to those who qualify. It is not a requirement to apply for or attend these programs, so if we invite the government to be this involved in our lives, we give up something in return.
BTW, I am not necessarily against these types of programs because I know many people and children who have benefitted from them.0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
That's the problem! Why is the government making these guidelines? Where do they get the right? They are not the parents. People will gripe for the government to stay out of their beds, off their bodies, on and on. But it is perfectly okay to dictate what a parent can give his/her own children for school lunch? No, absolutely not.
The schools don't have to follow the guidelines if they don't take the government money...but then that translates to higher taxes and most people won't vote for that option. So, it is on the public if they don't want the government involved. I live in a school district with higher taxes and the only government funds they accept are for their nutrition programs because they provide free breakfast, lunches and snacks to kids in need and they even offer free breakfast, lunch, and snacks during the summer to anyone under the age of 18, or anyone with special needs, and they offer these same meals to adults for about $1.50 per meal, I believe. We still have Christmas and Easter breaks in our school district (gasp!) because of the limited involvement with the federal government. Don't want the government involved? Don't choose a government funded school. The woman in this story is taking advantage of a program that is essentially free day care paid for by...the government. If she doesn't want them telling her what to do, she is free to pay for another, non government funded, option.
That is her point, the tax dollars are taken out of the community, funneled through the federal government then Public schools are forced to either comply with their arbitrary guidelines or not receive the tax dollars that were taken from them to begin with.
Its all a power grab for the federal government, it's not about low income government funded programs these are Public schools
"Government money" isn't magical money that appears out of nowhere, its paid in by tax payers. You have to pay taxes then they make you jump through their specially selected hoops to get it back to fund programs in your own community. Does no one else see anything wrong with that?
Not all local tax money is funneled through the federal government. Our local property taxes are much higher than some surrounding areas and our sales taxes are also higher. Most of those dollars are funds allocated to the public schools and other programs that voters have agreed are important enough to spend the money on.
Yes, I think there are a lot of things wrong with how the government and things run in this country, but I also think there are a lot of things wrong with the people in this country. When a person can be given a gift (which is what I would call free day care) and then turn in to a media darling who is a VICTIM of SHAMING because someone dared address the rules they are expected to follow for accepting said gift, then we have a lot of problems as a society. The sense of entitlement and the lack of personal responsibility in this country is appalling. Oh no, someone wrote me a letter because I broke the rules? I'm a victim I say, a VICTIM!
Do you have some evidence that the family in this story doesn't pay any taxes, and is therefore not contributing to the public funds that make programs like this possible? Military families in NC qualified for Head Start programs like this preschool program, and they were certainly employed and paying their taxes.
I wasn't trying to imply that they aren't paying taxes, but it is still a gift that most tax paying families don't receive. If it's not available to everyone who pays taxes, then it's a special benefit that is gifted to those who qualify. It is not a requirement to apply for or attend these programs, so if we invite the government to be this involved in our lives, we give up something in return.
BTW, I am not necessarily against these types of programs because I know many people and children who have benefitted from them.
I doubt most tax paying families would be willing to give up their income and lifestyle to get to a financial level where they qualify for these programs, either. And just for giggles, here are the "eligibility factors," at least one of which must be present for a child to qualify for the preschool program in CO depending on age (not all tied to income):
- The child is eligible to receive free or reduced-cost meals pursuant to the provisions of the Federal “National School Lunch Act.”
- Homelessness of the child’s family
- An abusive adult residing in the home of the child
- Drug or alcohol abuse in the child’s family
- Either parent of the child was less than eighteen years of age and unmarried at the time of the birth of the child
- The child’s parent or guardian has not successfully completed a high school education or its equivalent
- Frequent relocation by the child’s family to new residences
- Poor social skills of the child
Children are also eligible:
- If they are in need of language development, including but not limited to the ability to speak English
- If they are receiving services from the State Department of Social Services as neglected or dependent children (i.e. foster children).
Based on that list, I'm not going make assumptions about the family in this story. For all I know, they qualify because she took the kid and left an abusive spouse, and is now a single parent with no savings and little income trying to do what's best. I can't fault someone for wanting the best chance for their kid, and the fact that the school system itself seems incredulous over the situation leads me to believe that this is not an instance of someone throwing a tantrum and being ungrateful. But as I said earlier, I'm more bothered by them involving the child than by the discussion between the adults.0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
That's the problem! Why is the government making these guidelines? Where do they get the right? They are not the parents. People will gripe for the government to stay out of their beds, off their bodies, on and on. But it is perfectly okay to dictate what a parent can give his/her own children for school lunch? No, absolutely not.
The schools don't have to follow the guidelines if they don't take the government money...but then that translates to higher taxes and most people won't vote for that option. So, it is on the public if they don't want the government involved. I live in a school district with higher taxes and the only government funds they accept are for their nutrition programs because they provide free breakfast, lunches and snacks to kids in need and they even offer free breakfast, lunch, and snacks during the summer to anyone under the age of 18, or anyone with special needs, and they offer these same meals to adults for about $1.50 per meal, I believe. We still have Christmas and Easter breaks in our school district (gasp!) because of the limited involvement with the federal government. Don't want the government involved? Don't choose a government funded school. The woman in this story is taking advantage of a program that is essentially free day care paid for by...the government. If she doesn't want them telling her what to do, she is free to pay for another, non government funded, option.
That is her point, the tax dollars are taken out of the community, funneled through the federal government then Public schools are forced to either comply with their arbitrary guidelines or not receive the tax dollars that were taken from them to begin with.
Its all a power grab for the federal government, it's not about low income government funded programs these are Public schools
"Government money" isn't magical money that appears out of nowhere, its paid in by tax payers. You have to pay taxes then they make you jump through their specially selected hoops to get it back to fund programs in your own community. Does no one else see anything wrong with that?
Not all local tax money is funneled through the federal government. Our local property taxes are much higher than some surrounding areas and our sales taxes are also higher. Most of those dollars are funds allocated to the public schools and other programs that voters have agreed are important enough to spend the money on.
Yes, I think there are a lot of things wrong with how the government and things run in this country, but I also think there are a lot of things wrong with the people in this country. When a person can be given a gift (which is what I would call free day care) and then turn in to a media darling who is a VICTIM of SHAMING because someone dared address the rules they are expected to follow for accepting said gift, then we have a lot of problems as a society. The sense of entitlement and the lack of personal responsibility in this country is appalling. Oh no, someone wrote me a letter because I broke the rules? I'm a victim I say, a VICTIM!
Do you have some evidence that the family in this story doesn't pay any taxes, and is therefore not contributing to the public funds that make programs like this possible? Military families in NC qualified for Head Start programs like this preschool program, and they were certainly employed and paying their taxes.
I wasn't trying to imply that they aren't paying taxes, but it is still a gift that most tax paying families don't receive. If it's not available to everyone who pays taxes, then it's a special benefit that is gifted to those who qualify. It is not a requirement to apply for or attend these programs, so if we invite the government to be this involved in our lives, we give up something in return.
BTW, I am not necessarily against these types of programs because I know many people and children who have benefitted from them.
I doubt most tax paying families would be willing to give up their income and lifestyle to get to a financial level where they qualify for these programs, either. And just for giggles, here are the "eligibility factors," at least one of which must be present for a child to qualify for the preschool program in CO depending on age (not all tied to income):
- The child is eligible to receive free or reduced-cost meals pursuant to the provisions of the Federal “National School Lunch Act.”
- Homelessness of the child’s family
- An abusive adult residing in the home of the child
- Drug or alcohol abuse in the child’s family
- Either parent of the child was less than eighteen years of age and unmarried at the time of the birth of the child
- The child’s parent or guardian has not successfully completed a high school education or its equivalent
- Frequent relocation by the child’s family to new residences
- Poor social skills of the child
Children are also eligible:
- If they are in need of language development, including but not limited to the ability to speak English
- If they are receiving services from the State Department of Social Services as neglected or dependent children (i.e. foster children).
Based on that list, I'm not going make assumptions about the family in this story. For all I know, they qualify because she took the kid and left an abusive spouse, and is now a single parent with no savings and little income trying to do what's best. I can't fault someone for wanting the best chance for their kid, and the fact that the school system itself seems incredulous over the situation leads me to believe that this is not an instance of someone throwing a tantrum and being ungrateful. But as I said earlier, I'm more bothered by them involving the child than by the discussion between the adults.
How could they not involve the child? If they let the kid eat the Oreos and they were against the rules, then they would have to do the same for the other kids, no? Telling a kid no, I'm sorry, these are the rules and you have to follow them is not detrimental to their well being. Telling the parent what the rules are in writing (even if the letter is poorly written) is not shaming or ridiculing or victimizing anyone. Yes, from what I've read, it's not school policy to address their nutritional guidelines by sending a letter to the parents, but it doesn't mean that the school doesn't still have guidelines to follow. In one article they quoted the representative as saying just that and in other articles all they've said is it's not school policy. The ones conveniently leaving out the fact that it's not school policy to send a letter home just help to further the victim mentality of the mother. If the mother really wanted the best chance for her kid, she would teach her daughter that sometimes it sucks that we can't do whatever we want because we have to follow the rules because we are not special snowflakes. Too many "grown ups" apparently have not learned that and look at our society now.0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »goldfishgoo wrote: »I think the very basic issue is why are the schools dictating what a child can and can not bring for lunch? These kids are not government property.
I'm not a fan of dispensing birth control to a 15 year old girl but I am not going to tell another mother she can't no matter what I approve or disapprove of. It drives me crazy to see 12 year old girls drinking lattes at Starbucks. Do I have the right to take said beverage out of their hand? Schools have become more and more the substitute parents. Even worse they are dictating how parents will feed their children. "Oh, your son does not like bread?" "Too bad. The rules clearly state you can't just bring cheese slices and apples. It must be a sandwich." "Oh, you don't like you child to drink milk or juice?" "Yeah, well we don't approve of that water you sent." "Two cookies in your daughter's lunch box?!" "Are you crazy? That's not healthy. WE know what is best for that kid!" (notice I don't say 'your kid' because clearly the child belongs to the state...at least they sure act like it)
At some point enough is enough. Even the principal said the teacher was out of line.
Because there are state and federal guidelines in place that must be met. If they are not met, the school loses funding and/or accreditation.
That's the problem! Why is the government making these guidelines? Where do they get the right? They are not the parents. People will gripe for the government to stay out of their beds, off their bodies, on and on. But it is perfectly okay to dictate what a parent can give his/her own children for school lunch? No, absolutely not.
The schools don't have to follow the guidelines if they don't take the government money...but then that translates to higher taxes and most people won't vote for that option. So, it is on the public if they don't want the government involved. I live in a school district with higher taxes and the only government funds they accept are for their nutrition programs because they provide free breakfast, lunches and snacks to kids in need and they even offer free breakfast, lunch, and snacks during the summer to anyone under the age of 18, or anyone with special needs, and they offer these same meals to adults for about $1.50 per meal, I believe. We still have Christmas and Easter breaks in our school district (gasp!) because of the limited involvement with the federal government. Don't want the government involved? Don't choose a government funded school. The woman in this story is taking advantage of a program that is essentially free day care paid for by...the government. If she doesn't want them telling her what to do, she is free to pay for another, non government funded, option.
That is her point, the tax dollars are taken out of the community, funneled through the federal government then Public schools are forced to either comply with their arbitrary guidelines or not receive the tax dollars that were taken from them to begin with.
Its all a power grab for the federal government, it's not about low income government funded programs these are Public schools
"Government money" isn't magical money that appears out of nowhere, its paid in by tax payers. You have to pay taxes then they make you jump through their specially selected hoops to get it back to fund programs in your own community. Does no one else see anything wrong with that?
Not all local tax money is funneled through the federal government. Our local property taxes are much higher than some surrounding areas and our sales taxes are also higher. Most of those dollars are funds allocated to the public schools and other programs that voters have agreed are important enough to spend the money on.
Yes, I think there are a lot of things wrong with how the government and things run in this country, but I also think there are a lot of things wrong with the people in this country. When a person can be given a gift (which is what I would call free day care) and then turn in to a media darling who is a VICTIM of SHAMING because someone dared address the rules they are expected to follow for accepting said gift, then we have a lot of problems as a society. The sense of entitlement and the lack of personal responsibility in this country is appalling. Oh no, someone wrote me a letter because I broke the rules? I'm a victim I say, a VICTIM!
Do you have some evidence that the family in this story doesn't pay any taxes, and is therefore not contributing to the public funds that make programs like this possible? Military families in NC qualified for Head Start programs like this preschool program, and they were certainly employed and paying their taxes.
I wasn't trying to imply that they aren't paying taxes, but it is still a gift that most tax paying families don't receive. If it's not available to everyone who pays taxes, then it's a special benefit that is gifted to those who qualify. It is not a requirement to apply for or attend these programs, so if we invite the government to be this involved in our lives, we give up something in return.
BTW, I am not necessarily against these types of programs because I know many people and children who have benefitted from them.
I doubt most tax paying families would be willing to give up their income and lifestyle to get to a financial level where they qualify for these programs, either. And just for giggles, here are the "eligibility factors," at least one of which must be present for a child to qualify for the preschool program in CO depending on age (not all tied to income):
- The child is eligible to receive free or reduced-cost meals pursuant to the provisions of the Federal “National School Lunch Act.”
- Homelessness of the child’s family
- An abusive adult residing in the home of the child
- Drug or alcohol abuse in the child’s family
- Either parent of the child was less than eighteen years of age and unmarried at the time of the birth of the child
- The child’s parent or guardian has not successfully completed a high school education or its equivalent
- Frequent relocation by the child’s family to new residences
- Poor social skills of the child
Children are also eligible:
- If they are in need of language development, including but not limited to the ability to speak English
- If they are receiving services from the State Department of Social Services as neglected or dependent children (i.e. foster children).
Based on that list, I'm not going make assumptions about the family in this story. For all I know, they qualify because she took the kid and left an abusive spouse, and is now a single parent with no savings and little income trying to do what's best. I can't fault someone for wanting the best chance for their kid, and the fact that the school system itself seems incredulous over the situation leads me to believe that this is not an instance of someone throwing a tantrum and being ungrateful. But as I said earlier, I'm more bothered by them involving the child than by the discussion between the adults.
How could they not involve the child? If they let the kid eat the Oreos and they were against the rules, then they would have to do the same for the other kids, no? Telling a kid no, I'm sorry, these are the rules and you have to follow them is not detrimental to their well being. Telling the parent what the rules are in writing (even if the letter is poorly written) is not shaming or ridiculing or victimizing anyone. Yes, from what I've read, it's not school policy to address their nutritional guidelines by sending a letter to the parents, but it doesn't mean that the school doesn't still have guidelines to follow. In one article they quoted the representative as saying just that and in other articles all they've said is it's not school policy. The ones conveniently leaving out the fact that it's not school policy to send a letter home just help to further the victim mentality of the mother. If the mother really wanted the best chance for her kid, she would teach her daughter that sometimes it sucks that we can't do whatever we want because we have to follow the rules because we are not special snowflakes. Too many "grown ups" apparently have not learned that and look at our society now.
From what I've read in the various articles, parents have sent in items on the "banned" list before with no response from the school, and the school requested the parents send in candy for various parties. It seems odd for this to suddenly be an issue this late in the school year.
The kids aren't going to know the rules about food, and since no one told them the rules, taking the food away just confuses them. You let the kid eat the cookies and discreetly send a note home to the parents, if that is school policy to contact them. If it's not school policy, and this teacher was in violation by sending this note home and taking food away from the kid in front of all the other students - then yes, there is a bit of shaming going on.
I'm personally hoping it was just an honest mistake and not an adult expressing their personal bias as to what the families who are enrolled the program should or should not be doing to raise their kids; it would be very disappointing to see something like that come out as the school system investigates the incident.
There's nothing wrong with expecting people to follow rules, but there is a problem when people are not made aware of the rules, or someone takes it upon themselves to enforce rules in a way that is not in keeping with the policy.0 -
Re: The ones conveniently leaving out the fact that it's not school policy to send a letter home just help to further the victim mentality of the mother. If the mother really wanted the best chance for her kid, she would teach her daughter that sometimes it sucks that we can't do whatever we want because we have to follow the rules because we are not special snowflakes. Too many "grown ups" apparently have not learned that and look at our society now.[/quote]
But none of this is the issue. Dictating what a child can or can't have for lunch brought from home is wrong. Making a policy about what foods we (school/government) think are best is going way over the line. A policy about what you can't eat because another child can't so nobody gets it is even more ridiculous. You must do your homework and pay attention in class is very different from bringing items in for lunch. Rules that you can't share food items are okay because some kids can't have certain foods (peanut allergies). Again, that is different from your child can't consume this, this, or that because we don't approve.
As for a school lunch program, if the parent is not paying for the meal then, no, she can't argue with what's being served. But if mom goes to the store and buys the food then, no the school needs to back off.
I don't think the mom was playing victim. But it does show that this is becoming a problem. It is not even about the cookies. Schools are trying to be parents. They make it very clear they and only they know best. Need funds for a school? Well Uncle Sam is happy to take care...at a cost. You'll need to give up some freedoms. It's the same with doling out birth control to 15 year olds regardless of what a parent thinks. Schools bring up social issues that some parents object to but, oh well, they know best.
0 -
Both of my kids like Oreo cookies and if that is what they wanted in their lunch bag I'd have no problem at all with that.0
-
Just in case the point hasn't been made in the previous 8 pages of this thread, let's look at what actually happened:
1. School sent home a note reminding parent of the school's healthy eating philosophy.
2. Parent wasn't "shamed". That's the title of this thread. The parent decided to go public because she's an idiot and wanted her 15 minutes of fame.
End of story.0 -
Just in case the point hasn't been made in the previous 8 pages of this thread, let's look at what actually happened:
1. School sent home a note reminding parent of the school's healthy eating philosophy.
2. Parent wasn't "shamed". That's the title of this thread. The parent decided to go public because she's an idiot and wanted her 15 minutes of fame.
End of story.
3. It turns out there is actually no such policy but people insist the mother is an idiot.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions