Mother shamed for sending her child to school with oreos
Options
Replies
-
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.
0 -
For those that have mentioned that schools will lose funding is lunches are not up to standard...yeah that doesn't include kids that bring their lunches to school, the standard that they have to uphold is what food THE SCHOOL serves for lunch.0
-
MomTo3Lovez wrote: »For those that have mentioned that schools will lose funding is lunches are not up to standard...yeah that doesn't include kids that bring their lunches to school, the standard that they have to uphold is what food THE SCHOOL serves for lunch.
Yeah, I thought that was how it worked. I think schools (government, whatever) are just going way overboard. Besides 1/2 the so-called nutritional school lunches are trashed.0 -
MomTo3Lovez wrote: »For those that have mentioned that schools will lose funding is lunches are not up to standard...yeah that doesn't include kids that bring their lunches to school, the standard that they have to uphold is what food THE SCHOOL serves for lunch.
That is true, but many schools choose to implement standards for all kids. That is their choice just as it's the parents choice to send their kid or not. To my knowledge, there are no states that ban home schooling. In the case of this family, it looks like the public school district funded the private pre school for this girl as part of a health beginnings type program (gathered info from the school district website), so if you choose to participate in a program like this, you choose to accept their dictates.0 -
katalinax87 wrote: »Hear about this in the UK all the time. I get that schools should encourage healthy choices but what about teaching moderation?
Exactly. It's stupid to be anti-alcohol and anti-weed because kids should learn self-discipline and it isn't bad in moderation, but we need to completely abstain from junk food? Three or four oreos are fine. It's when you start eating the entire container in one sitting that there's a problem.
0 -
MomTo3Lovez wrote: »For those that have mentioned that schools will lose funding is lunches are not up to standard...yeah that doesn't include kids that bring their lunches to school, the standard that they have to uphold is what food THE SCHOOL serves for lunch.
That is true, but many schools choose to implement standards for all kids. That is their choice just as it's the parents choice to send their kid or not. To my knowledge, there are no states that ban home schooling. In the case of this family, it looks like the public school district funded the private pre school for this girl as part of a health beginnings type program (gathered info from the school district website), so if you choose to participate in a program like this, you choose to accept their dictates.
I agree with that, if there are rules in place then yes you need to abide by them, my son's preschool is a peanut free facility and he loves peanut butter like nobody's business, but he doesn't get it while he's at school because it's not allowed, and he is just fine with following that, they serve breakfast and lunch and he eats that.
However from what I have read and other people have said they didn't have any kind of policy in place.
I also think that this was blown way out of proportion too, but that's JMO
0 -
goldfishgoo wrote: »MomTo3Lovez wrote: »For those that have mentioned that schools will lose funding is lunches are not up to standard...yeah that doesn't include kids that bring their lunches to school, the standard that they have to uphold is what food THE SCHOOL serves for lunch.
Yeah, I thought that was how it worked. I think schools (government, whatever) are just going way overboard. Besides 1/2 the so-called nutritional school lunches are trashed.
Yeah and they are not all that nutritional, I looked up the nutritional value of my daughters lunch was one day and the sodium alone was about 4500mg!
0 -
MomTo3Lovez wrote: »For those that have mentioned that schools will lose funding is lunches are not up to standard...yeah that doesn't include kids that bring their lunches to school, the standard that they have to uphold is what food THE SCHOOL serves for lunch.
That is true, but many schools choose to implement standards for all kids. That is their choice just as it's the parents choice to send their kid or not. To my knowledge, there are no states that ban home schooling. In the case of this family, it looks like the public school district funded the private pre school for this girl as part of a health beginnings type program (gathered info from the school district website), so if you choose to participate in a program like this, you choose to accept their dictates.
Schools are there to teach not play amateur nutritionist. So no, not when it comes to a packed lunch from home. I understand peanuts. But no, not you can have a sandwich with white bread but you can't have a cookie. White bread is highly processed. Some kids don't like bread at all while grain or otherwise. Some suggest yogurt. Hmmmm, which one? Trix? Maybe Yoplait? Nah, there's no overload of sugar in them. Juice? Yeah, juice! Certainly there's no excess sugar and calories in that! But wait there are juices that are 100% juice, right? Except aren't juices just quick concentrated calories? How about a granola bar? They don't have one gram of sugar. Nor do they make any of them with caramel, chocolate, or fake fruit. Oh...no, scratch that. But 2 cookies are the enemy and they must be banned by teachers who can't even write a grammatically correct letter?
If this is public school, who pays for the schools? Taxpayers...including the parents packing those lunches. The woman did not send her child in with a full package of Oreos. She sent a couple of cookies.
This nanny state crap is getting out of hand. Before you know it Colleges will start banning certain movies from being shown on campus just because they think they are too political. Oh, wait...that's already happening.0 -
Yeah and they are not all that nutritional, I looked up the nutritional value of my daughters lunch was one day and the sodium alone was about 4500mg!
[/quote]
Holy cow! And this from the department of 'we know what is best for your kids'!! Genius. Yeah, those cookies are so much worse than that tray of government nutrition.
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »I'm actually curious as to why they singled out the Oreos... there's not much in that lunch bag that my family or I would eat.
Well the lunch wasn't packed for you or your family now was it?
It's funny that there is uproar from a school about what a parent packs for their child since so many parents nowadays seem to leave all childrearing up to the teachers.
So instead of oreos, if this child lived in TN she could have had 6 year old pork with her lunch!!
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.0 -
I haven't seen that this was a rule? I thought the consensus was that it wasn't a rule. Is there an article that says it was a rule?
One article says the school doesn't tell parents what to feed their kids, but this child is there through a state run program bound by federal regulations. The school could say kids could eat horse for lunch, wouldn't change the rules for the ones who are there as overflow from the public program.
The first version of the article I saw, which I can't find now for the life of me, said that she had sent items on the "banned" list throughout the year and had never heard a word about it until now. She also felt the policy was confusing because the parents had been asked to send in things like candy for class parties.
Personally, the note isn't the issue to me. Sending someone a form note about a school policy is no big deal. The part that bothered me was taking away a portion of the child's lunch, replacement food or not. That seemed unnecessary and the adults could have easily communicated without involving the child. An adult doing something like that would've sent my kid into a tantrum.
And that's the part that's actually more common these days. Mom sites and blogs are filled with arguments about someone's kid getting their dessert taken away, or the school saying the lunch a parent sent wasn't good enough. A lot of times, it's not as controversial as oreos, and more about parents with picky kids who send something like meat and cheese with no bread, which gets confiscated and substituted with a sandwich on bread their kid won't eat, because bread.
Schools can lose funding now if lunches aren't up to standards, and some are more zealous than others about enforcing it. Presumably the extremes are the schools either desperate for money or with a lot of bored, rich granola touting moms in the PTA.
LOL that Oreos are controversial. The only controversy I can think of from when I was a kid was whether or not to dunk them, and whether or not you ate them whole or ate the filling first...
Obviously oreos are controversial, or this thread wouldn't be on page 7. Do you think there'd be this much debate if it was about a 4 year old having a Red Bull in her lunch instead?0 -
goldfishgoo wrote: »MomTo3Lovez wrote: »For those that have mentioned that schools will lose funding is lunches are not up to standard...yeah that doesn't include kids that bring their lunches to school, the standard that they have to uphold is what food THE SCHOOL serves for lunch.
That is true, but many schools choose to implement standards for all kids. That is their choice just as it's the parents choice to send their kid or not. To my knowledge, there are no states that ban home schooling. In the case of this family, it looks like the public school district funded the private pre school for this girl as part of a health beginnings type program (gathered info from the school district website), so if you choose to participate in a program like this, you choose to accept their dictates.
Schools are there to teach not play amateur nutritionist. So no, not when it comes to a packed lunch from home. I understand peanuts. But no, not you can have a sandwich with white bread but you can't have a cookie. White bread is highly processed. Some kids don't like bread at all while grain or otherwise. Some suggest yogurt. Hmmmm, which one? Trix? Maybe Yoplait? Nah, there's no overload of sugar in them. Juice? Yeah, juice! Certainly there's no excess sugar and calories in that! But wait there are juices that are 100% juice, right? Except aren't juices just quick concentrated calories? How about a granola bar? They don't have one gram of sugar. Nor do they make any of them with caramel, chocolate, or fake fruit. Oh...no, scratch that. But 2 cookies are the enemy and they must be banned by teachers who can't even write a grammatically correct letter?
If this is public school, who pays for the schools? Taxpayers...including the parents packing those lunches. The woman did not send her child in with a full package of Oreos. She sent a couple of cookies.
This nanny state crap is getting out of hand. Before you know it Colleges will start banning certain movies from being shown on campus just because they think they are too political. Oh, wait...that's already happening.
It's personal choice. You want to accept the public handout for what is basically free daycare (which is essentially the program that this woman participates in)? You play by their rules. You don't like their rules? You find a place that is satisfactory to you and pony up the cash yourself. Same thing with colleges or anything else.
On your point, if there isn't a rigid rule like "no cookies", then who is to decide what's reasonable for each kid? You think two cookies are okay, but not 6 or 8? What if your kid is eight inches shorter than mine and 30 pounds lighter and the only activity your kid gets is recess but mine is involved in extracurriculars that keep her active 2 hours most days? Maybe your kid should only be allowed 1/2 a cookie. Or, what if your kid is a bit chubby? No cookies for him?
If they say a reasonable amount is okay, some parent somewhere will still get upset that their little precious can't have a whole sleeve of cookies because how dare you tell me what's reasonable for MY precious.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.
I don't think that includes children who bring their own lunches. I think it only applies to what the school actually serves.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.
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.0 -
She should have sent them as slutty brownies.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.
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.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.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.
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?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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions