School menu ridiculousness

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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...

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?

What did you eat in the cafeteria? As someone who was in the school system from the mid 90's to 2007, this sounds about accurate for the last few decades.

What did you eat in the cafeteria? As someone who was in the school system from the mid 90's to 2007, this sounds about accurate for the last few decades.

I was in the public system in the 80's, and the public school lunches were worse than what I'm seeing reported here.

One of what the school system seemed to think was a 'healthier' lunch was chicken fried steak fingers, mashed potatoes, cream gravy, and wacky cake. Maybe it was better than the frito pie smothered in cheese, who knows.

Needless to say, most seniors were relieved to get the privilege of eating lunch off campus.

Glad I almost always had lunch from home.

I just want to chime in and say that I think this is a very interesting discussion.

After reading many of these responses, it's interesting to me that many see school/education as mutually exclusive from nutrition education. I don't necessarily think that this is true. Especially when children are young (between the ages of 4-11) we teach them how to be good citizens, how to interact with one another, and(if their PE budget isn't cut) how to be active. When I was in elementary school (almost 25 years ago) we had age-appropriate health and nutrition lessons. What kind of educational example would schools be setting, after having a child in a 7-8 hour school day learning not just reading, writing and math, but how to be healthy, and then present them with a smorgasbord of processed foods that resemble nothing like the examples they were shown in class?

Yes, parents do have the responsibility to teach their children about nutrition and health. But children's schooling does not and should not omit education by example. A whole wheat tortilla with lowfat cheese and fresh fruit is a better option (and food children can connect to their lessons) than a Poptart--even if it is whole wheat.

My point, is that while parents are responsible for teaching their children about nutrition and making good choices, schools are educational establishments that should also be supporting those lessons.

Anyway, I just wanted to contribute to this discussion. All best!

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.

You know, I'm curious. If the school lunch program has such benefits and there's no better way to help poor hungry kids, how do countries like Canada (most provinces, I believe there is one that has a school lunch program) and Australia that don't serve lunch in school manage? Last I heard they are not inundated with starving children.

From a study by the Canadian Council on Social Development after a study of the efficacy of school lunch programs (http://www.ccsd.ca/perception/234/sf.htm):

"As school food programs have developed, their goals have shifted. Programs that were begun simply to feed children now try to address multiple goals such as nutritional adequacy for all children, nutritional education, positive socialization, school attendance, family time-stress, community mobilization, partnerships and social supports. One reason for this shift is that programs have been unable to demonstrate reductions in hunger and enhancements in nutrition."

and

"From this review of school food programs, it would seem that they are an inadequate or inappropriate response to hunger in children for a number of reasons, including the following:

Programs can only address a symptom - hunger - of one or more underlying problems.

Typically, hungry children and their families use other means to alleviate hunger - such as food banks, relatives, neighbours - before using school food programs.

Lack of data makes it very difficult to know, other than through anecdotes, what percentage of hungry children in any given school area participate in programs.

The nutritional value of programs and of the food that is served may be inadequate. A lack of documentation means that there is insufficient evidence to measure the nutritional value.

From a developmental perspective, hunger and undernourishment can have the most severe effects on preschool-aged children, rather than on school-aged children. Children not yet in school should probably be the priority recipients of food programs.

Most programs are elementary-school based, thus disregarding youth. <-- this is not the case in my area

Most programs are based in schools rather than in other community facilities, so the food is available for only about half the year.
"

Both those countries feature more extensive and generous social welfare programs than what is seen in the USA. They are frequently cited by the political right in the US as examples of how awful things will be if we allow "socialism" to run rampant.

I will totally agree that the USA should abandon school lunches and adopt more generous and sensible programs for addressing food insecurity, inadequate medical care, and the cycle of poverty.

I just want to chime in and say that I think this is a very interesting discussion.

After reading many of these responses, it's interesting to me that many see school/education as mutually exclusive from nutrition education. I don't necessarily think that this is true. Especially when children are young (between the ages of 4-11) we teach them how to be good citizens, how to interact with one another, and(if their PE budget isn't cut) how to be active. When I was in elementary school (almost 25 years ago) we had age-appropriate health and nutrition lessons. What kind of educational example would schools be setting, after having a child in a 7-8 hour school day learning not just reading, writing and math, but how to be healthy, and then present them with a smorgasbord of processed foods that resemble nothing like the examples they were shown in class?

Yes, parents do have the responsibility to teach their children about nutrition and health. But children's schooling does not and should not omit education by example. A whole wheat tortilla with lowfat cheese and fresh fruit is a better option (and food children can connect to their lessons) than a Poptart--even if it is whole wheat.

My point, is that while parents are responsible for teaching their children about nutrition and making good choices, schools are educational establishments that should also be supporting those lessons.

Anyway, I just wanted to contribute to this discussion. All best!

You had me until you mentioned low fat cheese for kids. That's a big NO.

The ridiculous food limitations (cutting out fat, carbs, grains, milk, etc.) that show up on here for adults, only become all that more ridiculous and dangerous when they are applied to kids.