Throwing away a child's lunch?

valmaebel

Schools NEED to find a better way of letting parents know the balance is low; not trusting a challenged child (or ANY child) to relay it to his/her mother or father. Especially when a parent could put $100 into an account and think they're good for a month or two (idk how much it costs, but roll with me here) and then the kid is buying $1 cookies and $3 ice creams and $2 sodas since there is literally little - if any - guidance on what the child may or may not buy at lunch. I distinctly remember kids dropping $15 from their accounts at a time to buy snacks for themselves and their friends. Adult supervision never applied.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit here...the only places I've seen that allowed options for food were at the high school level. At that point most students (mentally challenged would need a system I grant you) are more than capable of keeping track of their own accounts. In elementary schools, there is a flat fee for lunch each day and then the kid can decide between three or four items offered that day. But the price doesn't change.

It's just good business for schools to keep parents informed of what they owe as they should obviously want to be paid for the lunches. but the RESPONSIBILITY should fall on the parent. Trust me, the lunch menu and prices are not kept in a top secret vault that only a select few can see. The vast majority are on websites readily accessible at all hours from your bed in your pajamas.

Now what is the school's responsibility would be to let you know if your kid is doing something in the sly...like buying lunch for friends. but many of the schools I have taught in or subbed in did not allow that in the first place.

valmaebel

Also, I don't know what schools you've been in but even most of the high schools I've been in didn't allow pop or other such things. But most definitely NOT at the elementary level. The closest thing I've seen to a sugary snack was a small dollop of chocolate pudding.

KrysBlaze

I'm seeing that the responsibility falls to the parent; true.

What if the parent(s) truly don't care?

What if the mom just left an abusive situation & truly has no money or food?

What should change about the process of "alternate" lunches? If the circumstances above applied would that change your view?

There are kids in state care who don't get to eat because they are bullied/tortured in their foster homes.

How does this specific incident benefit the child?

What is the lesson learned?

If one of the kids comes back & goes off on the teachers, like we've seen way too many times, is that when we start caring about humans small, young, old, tall...? You're dealing with the mental state of a child. How does a child benefit from bullying? Think at it from the child's p.o.v. and don't use your life experience, good or bad, think of being a child who is hungry, got food & then this happened.

It's funny we're quick to say "treat others the way you want to be treated," but then a thread like this shows that very few people feel worthy of being treated well, let alone being treated with love. :-/

Fit2Strip

Considering how well the government runs itself, I definitely want them running my child's life...........
Some schools don't even allow any packed lunches because of allergies, so the parents have no choice but to pay for whatever crap the school is forcing. They don't want some renegade bringing in a peanut butter sandwich and shoving it down the throat of a kid allergic to peanuts (emphasis on absurdity).

geebusuk

What if the parent(s) truly don't care?

Then the kids should be removed from them, if they don't care to provide them with feed.

I believe even in the US, parents that don't have enough money are given assistance and it seems that may include free school meals.
'Meal tickets' are standard in the UK for any family under £16,200 (for the record, a person with one kid who has a salary of £16.200 before tax would get the same money after tax with state benefits as someone on £30k but no benefits.)

Does a child benefit from never being exposed to averse feelings?
That seems to be something particularly big in the US - can't give students low marks because it might make them feel bad, everyone's a winner and so on.
That is not a good learning experience for life to my mind.

Oh and yes, I'd love it if everyone gave me free food. That doesn't mean I'd go around giving everyone I see free food. I certainly wouldn't EXPECT people to give me free food, so I don't EXPECT others to do the same to me.

KrysBlaze

What if the parent(s) truly don't care?

Then the kids should be removed from them, if they don't care to provide them with feed.

I believe even in the US, parents that don't have enough money are given assistance and it seems that may include free school meals.
'Meal tickets' are standard in the UK for any family under £16,200 (for the record, a person with one kid who has a salary of £16.200 before tax would get the same money after tax with state benefits as someone on £30k but no benefits.)

Does a child benefit from never being exposed to averse feelings?
That seems to be something particularly big in the US - can't give students low marks because it might make them feel bad, everyone's a winner and so on.
That is not a good learning experience for life to my mind.

Oh and yes, I'd love it if everyone gave me free food. That doesn't mean I'd go around giving everyone I see free food. I certainly wouldn't EXPECT people to give me free food, so I don't EXPECT others to do the same to me.

Dear Sir,

I mentioned that even in foster care systems there is in fact gross negligence and neglect of children. Your reasoning is along the lines of exposing a child to a crackhead for at least a few hours a day so they understand that drugs are bad. I disagree with everyone gets a trophy, learning to test vs. learning to grow & bullying of children to prove a point.

An adult doesn't need to purposely expose a child to negativity. There is puberty, tele, and enough that happens amongst peer groups that will supply doubt & pain enough.

*sigh* I would opt to persuade you, but... smh

zacksnana

What if the parent(s) truly don't care?

Then the kids should be removed from them, if they don't care to provide them with feed.

I believe even in the US, parents that don't have enough money are given assistance and it seems that may include free school meals.
'Meal tickets' are standard in the UK for any family under £16,200 (for the record, a person with one kid who has a salary of £16.200 before tax would get the same money after tax with state benefits as someone on £30k but no benefits.)

Does a child benefit from never being exposed to averse feelings?
That seems to be something particularly big in the US - can't give students low marks because it might make them feel bad, everyone's a winner and so on.
That is not a good learning experience for life to my mind.

Oh and yes, I'd love it if everyone gave me free food. That doesn't mean I'd go around giving everyone I see free food. I certainly wouldn't EXPECT people to give me free food, so I don't EXPECT others to do the same to me.

Dear Sir,

I mentioned that even in foster care systems there is in fact gross negligence and neglect of children. Your reasoning is along the lines of exposing a child to a crackhead for at least a few hours a day so they understand that drugs are bad. I disagree with everyone gets a trophy, learning to test vs. learning to grow & bullying of children to prove a point.

An adult doesn't need to purposely expose a child to negativity. There is puberty, tele, and enough that happens amongst peer groups that will supply doubt & pain enough.

*sigh* I would opt to persuade you, but... smh

Sadly i agree with you. There are those who simply cannot be convinced that the adults in this case have made mistakes and the CHILDREN do not need punished for it. The original point of the OP was kids had their lunches removed from in front of them and thrown in the trash. There are many ways the school could choose to handle situations in which a child has no lunch or money to purchase lunch. I don't believe how they handled it was remotely appropriate.

geebusuk

So; in a cash system, if a kid repeatedly queues up with no money, should they always be given the food they have taken?
Should it apply in other cases outside schools?
At what point do you draw the line and say you stop giving them stuff for free, if ever?

... And there are some that will never be convinced that the parents should take responsibility for feeding their kids.

Exposing kids to the sort of person who would put them off drugs may be counter-productive as far as stopping them taking drugs in the future - because when they meet 'normal' people who take drugs, they often realise that a lot of the drug 'education' they've had is more propaganda than useful information.

However, there's a difference between 'purposely' exposing kids to negative stuff and following a basic principal that work the same in the rest of our society - that you have to pay for goods before you can have them.

I'm sure Foster care can be pretty nasty. But then I wouldn't hold parents that can't manage the very basics in much esteem either.

KrysBlaze

Sadly i agree with you. There are those who simply cannot be convinced that the adults in this case have made mistakes and the CHILDREN do not need punished for it. The original point of the OP was kids had their lunches removed from in front of them and thrown in the trash. There are many ways the school could choose to handle situations in which a child has no lunch or money to purchase lunch. I don't believe how they handled it was remotely appropriate.

Agreed.

It's sometimes easier to do our part to fix a problem than to convince others the problem exists.

ldrosophila

Wonder what the superintendent and school administration make a year?

KrysBlaze

:yawn: :ohwell:

So; in a cash system, if a kid repeatedly queues up with no money, should they always be given the food they have taken?
Should it apply in other cases outside schools?
At what point do you draw the line and say you stop giving them stuff for free, if ever?

... And there are some that will never be convinced that the parents should take responsibility for feeding their kids.

Exposing kids to the sort of person who would put them off drugs may be counter-productive as far as stopping them taking drugs in the future - because when they meet 'normal' people who take drugs, they often realise that a lot of the drug 'education' they've had is more propaganda than useful information.

However, there's a difference between 'purposely' exposing kids to negative stuff and following a basic principal that work the same in the rest of our society - that you have to pay for goods before you can have them.

I'm sure Foster care can be pretty nasty. But then I wouldn't hold parents that can't manage the very basics in much esteem either.

Speaking from experience, NOT opinion, there were times when I went hungry as a child and I didn't become an adult wanting handouts. To keep it short, my mom lost her job when I was younger and didn't believe in public assistance. She looked for a job for months with no success. She was (and still is) a highly educated black woman, which did not work to her advantage in the 1980 American society. She was either overly qualified or too tan for the job. She took anything she could find, even still, there were times it came down to rent and bills or food. In the end GOD provided through the kindness of people. When I became a teen about 14/15 I got my first job outside of the house. By the time I was 16 I normally had between 2-3 jobs at any given time. As an adult I usually have my main job and something I do on the side. I don't believe in giving handouts, but I always want to give someone a hand up. A child receiving kindness can only benefit from the experience and later so will the rest of society.

I'm sorry that you cannot begin to fathom the importance of showing love, I really am, but stop urinating everywhere and calling it sunshine.

KrysBlaze

Wonder what the superintendent and school administration make a year?

It ranges from state to state, but starts around $100,000-200,000+ annually, but they also get an expense account & other bonuses for things such as school attendance, test scoring & waste prevention. It's a government job, so the current salary is public record.

geebusuk

but stop urinating everywhere and calling it sunshine.

Please do answer my questions, seeing that you're criticising the rest, so I know where YOU stand.

In the UK we see an awful lot of people who learn to live off state handhouts and take that as a way of life.
Or maybe it's GOD's plan for them to shoplift from corner shops and petrol stations when they run out of booze.

skinnylady2014

I did hear later on TV that the school acknowledged that it had, in fact, failed to notify some of the parents that their child's account was empty. Initially, the school said it had notified all parents of the 40-some children.

That's about all I know. But I do feel that if the meals were already on the plates, the children should have been served those foods instead of just throwing them away.

zacksnana

:yawn: :ohwell:

So; in a cash system, if a kid repeatedly queues up with no money, should they always be given the food they have taken?
Should it apply in other cases outside schools?
At what point do you draw the line and say you stop giving them stuff for free, if ever?

... And there are some that will never be convinced that the parents should take responsibility for feeding their kids.

Exposing kids to the sort of person who would put them off drugs may be counter-productive as far as stopping them taking drugs in the future - because when they meet 'normal' people who take drugs, they often realise that a lot of the drug 'education' they've had is more propaganda than useful information.

However, there's a difference between 'purposely' exposing kids to negative stuff and following a basic principal that work the same in the rest of our society - that you have to pay for goods before you can have them.

I'm sure Foster care can be pretty nasty. But then I wouldn't hold parents that can't manage the very basics in much esteem either.

Speaking from experience, NOT opinion, there were times when I went hungry as a child and I didn't become an adult wanting handouts. To keep it short, my mom lost her job when I was younger and didn't believe in public assistance. She looked for a job for months with no success. She was (and still is) a highly educated black woman, which did not work to her advantage in the 1980 American society. She was either overly qualified or too tan for the job. She took anything she could find, even still, there were times it came down to rent and bills or food. In the end GOD provided through the kindness of people. When I became a teen about 14/15 I got my first job outside of the house. By the time I was 16 I normally had between 2-3 jobs at any given time. As an adult I usually have my main job and something I do on the side. I don't believe in giving handouts, but I always want to give someone a hand up. A child receiving kindness can only benefit from the experience and later so will the rest of society.

I'm sorry that you cannot begin to fathom the importance of showing love, I really am, but stop urinating everywhere and calling it sunshine.

Agreed. I like your post.

I also like that we have the option to IGNORE USER (click on the little arrow by username) so we no longer need to read posts from those who don't understand why feeding a hungry child might not be a bad thing.

Option exercised. Feels nice. :-)

geebusuk

Agreed. I like your post.

I also like that we have the option to IGNORE USER (click on the little arrow by username) so we no longer need to read posts from those who don't understand why feeding a hungry child might not be a bad thing.

Option exercised. Feels nice. :-)

Yep; just go and ignore those who have questions you can't answer, that's obviously the best way to understand your own moral standpoint! :laugh: