School menu ridiculousness

Cranquistador

Personally, I’m opposed to school lunches altogether. I don’t believe it is the education system/taxpayer responsibility to feed the publicly schooled children.
I see the feeding of offspring as a responsibility one undertakes when they become a parent. If parents pack their kiddos lunches, they can put whatever they want in the lunch box.

So you think we should punish children in poor families because their parents don't or can't feed them properly? And how do you propose those children make it out of poverty if they can't get a good education due to being constantly hungry at school?

^this

LoraF83

Personally, I’m opposed to school lunches altogether. I don’t believe it is the education system/taxpayer responsibility to feed the publicly schooled children.
I see the feeding of offspring as a responsibility one undertakes when they become a parent. If parents pack their kiddos lunches, they can put whatever they want in the lunch box.

So you think we should punish children in poor families because their parents don't or can't feed them properly? And how do you propose those children make it out of poverty if they can't get a good education due to being constantly hungry at school?

^this

This again.

Holding innocent children responsible for adult decisions isn't ok in my book.

hookilau

Personally, I’m opposed to school lunches altogether. I don’t believe it is the education system/taxpayer responsibility to feed the publicly schooled children.
I see the feeding of offspring as a responsibility one undertakes when they become a parent. If parents pack their kiddos lunches, they can put whatever they want in the lunch box.

So you think we should punish children in poor families because their parents don't or can't feed them properly? And how do you propose those children make it out of poverty if they can't get a good education due to being constantly hungry at school?

^this

This again.

Holding innocent children responsible for adult decisions isn't ok in my book.

This is what this thread has been reduced to :huh:
Very sad indeed. :frown:

MzPix

So you think we should punish children in poor families because their parents don't or can't feed them properly?

Flawed reasoning.
Not agreeing with a particular social democracy program =/= punishment.

Also, you do realize that I already responded to this like 8 pages ago, right?

quirkytizzy

So you think we should punish children in poor families because their parents don't or can't feed them properly?

Flawed reasoning.
Not agreeing with a particular social democracy program =/= punishment.

Also, you do realize that I already responded to this like 8 pages ago, right?

That doesn't mean you, personally, want to punish them. It simply means that is the end result - which makes your support of such a position suspect. One has to wonder what you think about the groups of people who would be negatively affected by that stance.

MzPix

So you think we should punish children in poor families because their parents don't or can't feed them properly?

Flawed reasoning.
Not agreeing with a particular social democracy program =/= punishment.

Also, you do realize that I already responded to this like 8 pages ago, right?

That doesn't mean you, personally, want to punish them. It simply means that is the end result - which makes your support of such a position suspect. One has to wonder what you think about the groups of people who would be negatively affected by that stance.

According to this reasoning, anyone who is aware of any charities and doesn’t agree that we should be mandated to contribute to them, would be suspect for what they think of the populations of people who could benefit from those charities.
Which would pretty much be all of us since we are all well aware of numerous charities we aren’t mandated to contribute to.
Still, flawed reasoning.

quirkytizzy

According to this reasoning, anyone who is aware of any charities and doesn’t agree that we should be mandated to contribute to them, would be suspect for what they think of the populations of people who could benefit from those charities.
Which would pretty much be all of us since we are all well aware of numerous charities we aren’t mandated to contribute to.
Still, flawed reasoning.

Hardly. Arguing for the dissolution of those charities - as you are doing for school lunches - would be the same thing.

You'll find that while many choose not to give to charities, very few think they should not exist.

sarahertzberger

That is just awful I remember when I was in HS they would still serve the foods that were unhealthy for you pizza and such, but they did also have salad bars which I loved and they would also have a chef come in a couple times a week and cook up healthy fresh meals for those of us who wanted them

LiftAllThePizzas

Kids don't know how to eat healthy. When they offer apples for fresh fruit, most of the apples end up in the waste bin. True story.

Very true! I WISH my son ate more fruits and veggies....they say lead by example...well, it doesn't exactly work that way sometimes I eat fruits and always offer them, but he'll either not even give it a chance or he'll try it and hate it! He's really big on textures and how things look.

I'm not sure how old your son is, but mine are 7 and 10 and about 2 years ago we radically changed our diet and theirs. I do not allow anything with high fructose corn syrup in our house and I greatly restrict our processed food. I'm not perfect, but my kids were eating dino nuggets and cheese itzs like they were going out of style. They FREAKED when I eliminated it all. I explained how bad it was for them and since I knew that now, I couldn't give them that type of food because I care about their health. I then involved them in the process of picking out new foods. Kids can and will change their diets if we as parents model it and are firm. I had the pickiest of picky and it would have been so much easier to fall back into the same unhealthy route, but we didn't. My kids have now drank wheatgrass and eat quinoa.

Anyway, it is possible to turn a picky eater into a healthy one.

Your results contradict that completely. Your kids were nowhere near picky.

MzPix

Hardly. Arguing for the dissolution of those charities - as you are doing for school lunches - would be the same thing.

You'll find that while many choose not to give to charities, very few think they should not exist.

The statement that “very few” think mandated charity should not exist is simply not true. A significant percentage of the US Congress is currently and constantly arguing on behalf of their constituents for the dissolution of mandated charity of all sorts on a daily basis because they think many such programs should not exist.

(And the rest of this is not specifically to you quirkytizzy.)

The responses to my opinion on this issue are really oversimplifying a very complex topic. Without getting in-depth into politics (which is somewhat difficult in a discussion about a subsidized social program) it is important to understand that this is not a matter that can be dichotomized into some broad generalization of good/evil by issuing platitudes of “punishing the poor hungry children.” There are many shades of gray between extremes and numerous variables that influence one’s stance on any one social program or their overall view on humanitarianism. Not supporting school lunches does not negate a person’s other philanthropic beliefs, nor does it make someone a bad person that somehow wants to penalize little kids. Just like supporting the school lunch program does not inflate one’s humanitarian beliefs, nor does it make someone a good person and a savior of the underprivileged.

The original point of this thread was a mother who is discontented with her child’s school menu. She is saying that she will spend her own money and get her child real food. I am totally agreeing with her that I believe she should do that because I believe parents inherently have the responsibility of feeding their children and teaching their children about nutrition.

I am not a proponent of the public school system anyway, but as a sociologist, I do see the purpose and necessity of it. I do pay my property taxes that are used to support that system even though neither me, nor my kids, attend public school. However, I do not believe that the educational system is the appropriate social institution for dealing with nutrition, poverty, or parental negligence. Most school systems can’t even get their curriculum up to standard, adequately compensate their degreed educators, or eliminate the violence and bullying rampant in their own hallways. I feel this alone (not to mention about 14 other reasons) should disqualify them from being the auxiliary provider for what is ultimately the responsibility of people who choose to bear children.

In the event those parents can’t or don’t live up to their responsibility, I can think of several other interventions, besides an underpaid lunch lady and a slice of reheated pizza, that might be more appropriate to deal with the social problems of poverty, hunger and negligence. Again, we do not live in a society where there are only the binary choices of subsidizing public school lunches or “punishing the hungry kids.” That is a very narrow and exclusionary way of exploring a multifaceted social dilemma.

I am not denying that poverty and negligence exist and I am not punishing anyone’s kids. In fact, I would go so far as to say if a child isn’t eating healthy meals in the home, it is their very parents who are punishing them, not the rest of us. I do believe that in cases where the “only meal some children get is school lunch,” we should seriously be looking at that family for numerous ethical reasons, not simply putting the Band-Aid of school lunch on what is a terrible wound in the family structure. That would mean that these parents are literally starving their children by never feeding them. That is reprehensible and should not be tolerated. But to give that child a hotdog at school is not taking care of that problem. It is ultimately allowing it to prosper. And there are other alternatives and numerous other social programs, both governmentally funded, as well as non-profit and privately funded, that are available all over the country but not being utilized.

In addition, that child’s ability to retain academic information and their performance on a test should be an extremely low priority if their parents aren’t even feeding them. So questions like “how can I teach a hungry child and have them pay attention?” is morally the wrong question to be asking. One should instead be asking “What the hell is going on in this child’s home that the parents are not providing something as basic to survival as food?” Maslow’s hierarchy alone should have clarified the distinction in priority.

If any one of us stood up and said “I never feed my kid at home. I just let them eat school lunch and hope it’s enough” we would have our parenting called into question, our integrity and choices insulted, accusations would fly, and potentially we would be reported to the authorities. But for some reason, that exact behavior is being overlooked and even justified in this thread. Yet the taxpaying people with no kids in the home who disagree with the subsidized public school lunch programs are being accused of punishing children. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

I’m off, but you all have a nice weekend.

RGv2

I find it a pitty when women pop out 4 or 5 babies knowing that they can't afford to take care of them. Everybody has an opinion.

It must be nice to know exactly what's going to happen in your life and in the world's economy for the next 18-21 years and not have to worry about your financial situation changing.

Speaking of which, can someone please return my crystal ball? I really need that before the next big Powerball drawing.

That wasn't the point. It had nothing to do with the future, and all to do with the present. A person knows whether or not they can afford a child when making the decision to have one. I waited 4 years post marriage because we knew we weren't financially stable enough yet. Others on the other hand, don't care and go ahead anyway. That was the point.

I know that. It was a joke.

Some people miss the finite art of sarcasm.

Or, some people are just awful at it.

RGv2

If you get through to your husband let me know how, I am trying to teach my children a healthy lifestyle and he also buys them soda, and fruit flavored drinks (koolaid type stuff), french fries, Mcdonalds, etc... I don't forbid "junk" but homeade peanut butter cookies, veggie chips, they love that stuff and its way healthier than what he does. I don't want for them what I am going through!

Then teach them moderation now?

supremelady

According to this reasoning, anyone who is aware of any charities and doesn’t agree that we should be mandated to contribute to them, would be suspect for what they think of the populations of people who could benefit from those charities.
Which would pretty much be all of us since we are all well aware of numerous charities we aren’t mandated to contribute to.
Still, flawed reasoning.

Hardly. Arguing for the dissolution of those charities - as you are doing for school lunches - would be the same thing.

You'll find that while many choose not to give to charities, very few think they should not exist.

you are reaching and grabbing at air. your first post and this one are both how can i put this "ignorant". no matter how you spin it there are poor kids at school who only get meals at school. And a bunch of working americans who pay taxes and send their children to school. they kids eat the lunch too.

pcastagner

Hardly. Arguing for the dissolution of those charities - as you are doing for school lunches - would be the same thing.

You'll find that while many choose not to give to charities, very few think they should not exist.

The statement that “very few” think mandated charity should not exist is simply not true. A significant percentage of the US Congress is currently and constantly arguing on behalf of their constituents for the dissolution of mandated charity of all sorts on a daily basis because they think many such programs should not exist.

(And the rest of this is not specifically to you quirkytizzy.)

The responses to my opinion on this issue are really oversimplifying a very complex topic. Without getting in-depth into politics (which is somewhat difficult in a discussion about a subsidized social program) it is important to understand that this is not a matter that can be dichotomized into some broad generalization of good/evil by issuing platitudes of “punishing the poor hungry children.” There are many shades of gray between extremes and numerous variables that influence one’s stance on any one social program or their overall view on humanitarianism. Not supporting school lunches does not negate a person’s other philanthropic beliefs, nor does it make someone a bad person that somehow wants to penalize little kids. Just like supporting the school lunch program does not inflate one’s humanitarian beliefs, nor does it make someone a good person and a savior of the underprivileged.

The original point of this thread was a mother who is discontented with her child’s school menu. She is saying that she will spend her own money and get her child real food. I am totally agreeing with her that I believe she should do that because I believe parents inherently have the responsibility of feeding their children and teaching their children about nutrition.

I am not a proponent of the public school system anyway, but as a sociologist, I do see the purpose and necessity of it. I do pay my property taxes that are used to support that system even though neither me, nor my kids, attend public school. However, I do not believe that the educational system is the appropriate social institution for dealing with nutrition, poverty, or parental negligence. Most school systems can’t even get their curriculum up to standard, adequately compensate their degreed educators, or eliminate the violence and bullying rampant in their own hallways. I feel this alone (not to mention about 14 other reasons) should disqualify them from being the auxiliary provider for what is ultimately the responsibility of people who choose to bear children.

In the event those parents can’t or don’t live up to their responsibility, I can think of several other interventions, besides an underpaid lunch lady and a slice of reheated pizza, that might be more appropriate to deal with the social problems of poverty, hunger and negligence. Again, we do not live in a society where there are only the binary choices of subsidizing public school lunches or “punishing the hungry kids.” That is a very narrow and exclusionary way of exploring a multifaceted social dilemma.

I am not denying that poverty and negligence exist and I am not punishing anyone’s kids. In fact, I would go so far as to say if a child isn’t eating healthy meals in the home, it is their very parents who are punishing them, not the rest of us. I do believe that in cases where the “only meal some children get is school lunch,” we should seriously be looking at that family for numerous ethical reasons, not simply putting the Band-Aid of school lunch on what is a terrible wound in the family structure. That would mean that these parents are literally starving their children by never feeding them. That is reprehensible and should not be tolerated. But to give that child a hotdog at school is not taking care of that problem. It is ultimately allowing it to prosper. And there are other alternatives and numerous other social programs, both governmentally funded, as well as non-profit and privately funded, that are available all over the country but not being utilized.

In addition, that child’s ability to retain academic information and their performance on a test should be an extremely low priority if their parents aren’t even feeding them. So questions like “how can I teach a hungry child and have them pay attention?” is morally the wrong question to be asking. One should instead be asking “What the hell is going on in this child’s home that the parents are not providing something as basic to survival as food?” Maslow’s hierarchy alone should have clarified the distinction in priority.

If any one of us stood up and said “I never feed my kid at home. I just let them eat school lunch and hope it’s enough” we would have our parenting called into question, our integrity and choices insulted, accusations would fly, and potentially we would be reported to the authorities. But for some reason, that exact behavior is being overlooked and even justified in this thread. Yet the taxpaying people with no kids in the home who disagree with the subsidized public school lunch programs are being accused of punishing children. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

I’m off, but you all have a nice weekend.

Yeah... see, you are worried about morals and who is to blame for what. Nice tautology there, but I really could care less because we don't need all that reasoning when we have evidence of what's wrong and what helps. Considering the costs, even 1/10th of the claimed benefits would make the program worthwhile.

You argument reduces down to "unfortunately we can't act to break the cycle of poverty, because that would create a moral hazard, and chaos would ensue". Fortunately, most people grow out of their Ayn Rand stage and we have better policies than that.

Nicolee_2014

My mind boggles when I have to pack my little 1's lunch for her 3 hour day care thing at the local kindergarten. I can only pack fruit, cheese, crackers & anything basically not processed. I'm surprised they allow white bread to be honest!

pcastagner

My mind boggles when I have to pack my little 1's lunch for her 3 hour day care thing at the local kindergarten. I can only pack fruit, cheese, crackers & anything basically not processed. I'm surprised they allow white bread to be honest!

The only thing not processed on your list was the fruit?

Nicolee_2014

My mind boggles when I have to pack my little 1's lunch for her 3 hour day care thing at the local kindergarten. I can only pack fruit, cheese, crackers & anything basically not processed. I'm surprised they allow white bread to be honest!

The only thing not processed on your list was the fruit?

Yeah which contradicts what they put on the 'what to pack for snacks list' :frown:

athenalittlerbassett

what is sad is Jamie Oliver came to the states to try and ensure healthy eating in our schools systems and the kids actually wanted the healthy foods compared to what they were being served and the school board in Los Angeles threw him out of the school it is all about money folks and that is the bottom line it is so sad that we have a generation of kids with type 2 diabetes did you know that the chocolate and strawberry milks that the kids receive in school i am talking the pint size has more sugar in it than a 12 oz soft drink. But they say it is Healthy (bull****) But then you have schools that having to cut back on athletic programs cause people want to ***** about having higher taxes. Kids need to be active wake up people and get your kids moving don't let a television and video games be the babysitter...

cookn_mama

As a lunch lady I'm going to stick my neck out here. Federal gov't says that kids have to have a certain amount of fruits/veggies and 2 other food groups on their tray to be charged a reimburseable lunch. Reimburseable lunch is a lunch that the fed and state gov't reimburses the school district a portion of the lunch cost. Yes, some of the veggies and fruit ends up in the garbage. We realize that some kids don't like them but we are pressured to make sure they have the fruits and veggies on their trays.
The food management company that I work for has their menus analyzed for nutritional values, from vit a to z, fat, salt, calories. We try to make scratch items as much as possible. We need to use gov't commodity items to keep the cost of the lunches as low as possible. Without them lunch cost would be very high.
A lot of people just don't understand the politics that go with it. look up info at education.state.yourstate,us.

mspoopoo

It's no wonder we're raising generations of obese children, considering what they're getting in public school. My little one will be in a school-run daycare next week, and she's eating solid foods now. One of the options is to let her get her breakfast and lunch free from the cafeteria, but after looking at the menu options, we'll spend our own money and send her real food.

Keep in mind this menu is produced by arguably the "best" cafeteria in our region, and most of the other schools around here COPY this menu for their students.

Breakfast daily options: Cinnamon roll/cheese stick, assorted Pop Tarts, Graham Snackers or blueberry or banana nut muffins. Daily hot options are a sausage roll, breakfast pizza, French toast link with syrup, pancake on a stick with syrup and a waffle with syrup and a sausage patty.

Lunch options...
Chili dog or cheesy stix (cheese bread) with marinara; chicken nuggets or PBJ; pepperoni pizza or a chalupa; corn dog or "fish strips" (WTF is that anyway); nachos or stuffed dippers with sauce; cheese pizza or meatball sub; and my PERSONAL favorite "main dish" options: mac and cheese with a roll or a corn dog.

Oh, and the lunch options are served with assorted milks, fresh fruits, veggies AND desserts.

If this is what our government says is healthy and acceptable for kids to eat, we're doomed.

So now you know it is bad. What are YOU going to do about it?