Chicago school bans homemade lunches

[asta]

Chicago School Bans homemade lunches

 

I foresee an onslaught of children with newfound allergies.

 

Sheesh - can no one see this for the cash cow it really is?

 

 

a

[regentrude]

I am all for good nutrition - but this is ridiculous.

School should focus on it's actual purpose: academics.

Teach instead of policing lunch.

[Dmmetler]

Earlier thread on this

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263104

[m0mmaBuck]

I posted this on Facebook and one of my friends quickly commented, "What about the kids who eat kosher?" Doesn't seem there is a provision for that.

[littleWMN]

I'm glad the schools know how to parent for us, because otherwise we wouldn't have a clue.

[mcconnellboys]

Or another way to tell us that as parents, we have no rights to make decisions for our children, because we're not capable of doing that to the level of some artificial norm that has been established.... Did we ever think that the better nutrition for children campaign would take this turn? (Or perhaps I should say "woudn't" take this turn....)

[justamouse]

get OUT!

 

is this about allergies?

 

Healthier? Are you kidding me? That lunch on the tray is far from healthy.

[sleepymommy]

I'm okay with schools setting reasonable limits but no bagged lunches at all, seriously?!

 

I personally am glad that sodas machines are out and would love for classrooms to get rid of the whole cupcakes/sweets/junk every.single.time. there is a birthday in a class of 20-30 kids. Add those birthdays to all the various 'celebrations' throughout the year and it's like there is always a party of some sort rather than any actual education taking place.

 

But this is crazy, do they really think that their hotdog and tater tots are really much more nutritious than the lunches kids bring in?

 

I can see the potential "good intentions" for this, but this really needs to be re-evaluated.

[Allearia]

Oh, the health benefits of strawberry flavored milk, tater tots and hot dogs!

[Ester Maria]

1) Schools should back off with intruding into other aspects of kids' lives (health, etc.) and focus on the bloody ACADEMICS. That's what they're for.

 

2) We need a facepalm smiley, in situations like this I don't know which one to use. :lol:

[ChristusG]

And for those who want to avoid hormone filled milk/meat and pesticide filled fruit/veggies? Umm, yeah, my child would quickly be out of there....or else suddenly have some allergies.

 

I see good intentions (I think), but you can't control what parents feed their children.

[Tarreymere]

hmmm........stupid parents, don't they know whose kids those are? Kids belong to the village, idiots!

[5LittleMonkeys]

I predict that eventually we will just be required to drop our newborn dc off at a government run facility and we will be able to pick them back up when they turn 18 and have been properly programmed. Just kidding...not.

 

I hope the parents of these schools that are sticking their fingers into pies that don't belong to them fight back. I understand restricting caffinated drinks at school and promoting healthy choices but to dictate what a parent feeds their own child....oh...I have to stop now or I'll get banned for bad language.:glare:

[Sputterduck]

It's says they can bring lunch from home if the child has allergies. I would tell them, "My son has an allergy to school food."

 

Seriously, that is an awfully unhealthy lunch. I can't believe that they say it's for health reasons! I can understand the carrot sticks, but not the hotdog, not the strawberry milk, not the canned pears, and not the plastic cheese. UGH.

[Sputterduck]

Oh, AND they make the parents pay for that crud or their child goes hungry? Wow.

[Danestress]

I honestly can not believe a school would go so far. Are they serious?

 

I will send my child to the police state .... I mean school.... with whatever lunch I choose, thank you very much.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Danestress

[Mynyel]

I'm glad the schools know how to parent for us, because otherwise we wouldn't have a clue.

 

:iagree:

 

 

I didn't know I could give my kids hot dogs, tater tots and strawberry milk everyday for lunch and it was healthy! WELL HOT DOG! :P I'm gunna run me down to the WalMart and pick me up some more sodium nitrate packed foods, oily foods and foods packed with sugar!

 

Who knew!?

 

 

Notice as well that the child wasn't going for the fruit or veggies but was eating the tots, dog and half the milk was gone... really? Jeez.

[FloridaLisa]

I saw this ealier on my homepage. The underlying assumption that parents 1) know nothing and/or 2) don't care enough about their children is outrageous!

 

There has been a steady shift in this country of parenting by PARENTS to parenting by (so-called) EXPERTS. Yes, I'm shouting. I, for one, am not defaulting my kids over to anyone.

 

Lisa

[TN Mama]

hmmm........stupid parents, don't they know whose kids those are? Kids belong to the village, idiots!

 

:lol: Village idiots, indeed!

[melissel]

Well, to be fair, the lunch in the photo is actually "A student's lunch in Gleed, Washington: AP," so it's not representative of the school's food. Also, it's a sandwich in there, not a hot dog. That said, what TOTAL BS! I hope someone brings a lawsuit against them. That's completely insane :(

[Aubrey]

The "hot dog" is a subway-style sandwich. The child has removed the cheese. Maybe he won't eat the carrots or the fruit, but I imagine they're trying to take the picture while everything is still represented.

 

I was optimistic before reading this article; I thought maybe Jaime Oliver had gotten hold of the schools *first* and *then* they'd banned brown bag lunches.

 

Still, though, as much as I'm against tater tots & pink milk, this lunch IS considerably better than the things found in the lunches on the JO show AND better than what my local elem school has on their menu.

 

And I guess I might as well go ahead & say it: I'm all for parental rights, but if you want me to take care of your child for 8+ hours, I don't want him or her all hopped up on sugar. Only grandparents can do that to a kid & then dump them in my care. ;)

 

As long as homeschooling is an option, I don't see a problem w/ school uniforms or mandated school lunches (assuming, again, that they're *reasonably* healthy, which is gray, lol).

[melissel]

The "hot dog" is a subway-style sandwich. The child has removed the cheese. Maybe he won't eat the carrots or the fruit, but I imagine they're trying to take the picture while everything is still represented.

 

I was optimistic before reading this article; I thought maybe Jaime Oliver had gotten hold of the schools *first* and *then* they'd banned brown bag lunches.

 

Still, though, as much as I'm against tater tots & pink milk, this lunch IS considerably better than the things found in the lunches on the JO show AND better than what my local elem school has on their menu.

 

And I guess I might as well go ahead & say it: I'm all for parental rights, but if you want me to take care of your child for 8+ hours, I don't want him or her all hopped up on sugar. Only grandparents can do that to a kid & then dump them in my care. ;)

 

As long as homeschooling is an option, I don't see a problem w/ school uniforms or mandated school lunches (assuming, again, that they're *reasonably* healthy, which is gray, lol).

 

Actually, the photo is an AP photo of a school lunch from Washington.

 

And while I kind of agree with you, the gray area is the problem. If you're going to force my to pay for the lunch, it had better be fresh, organic, and contain whole grains, because that's what I feed my children. If you can't do better than I can, you don't get to decide. And that brings up a whole slew of problems with exceptions.

[pqr]

If you can't do better than I can, you don't get to decide.

 

 

Even if you can do better I don't care. It is MY kid not the village's. I decide.

 

The "It Takes a Village" Crowd is on another one of their crusades.

[Aubrey]

Actually, the photo is an AP photo of a school lunch from Washington.

 

And while I kind of agree with you, the gray area is the problem. If you're going to force my to pay for the lunch, it had better be fresh, organic, and contain whole grains, because that's what I feed my children. If you can't do better than I can, you don't get to decide. And that brings up a whole slew of problems with exceptions.

 

Generally speaking, though, I think that people who fall on your end of the spectrum--organic, whole grains, etc--aren't going to send their kids to ps. So I think the far end of the scale is easier to achieve than people *here* think.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Even if you can do better I don't care. It is MY kid not the village's. I decide.

 

The "It Takes a Village" Crowd is on another one of their crusades.

 

True but you can homeschool:D

 

I think it is a bit of an over-reach but OTOH I am pretty sure these schools see appalling things when it comes to totally inadequate and inappropriate lunches due to poor parentlng that unfortunately is not uncommon:(. I also suspect it would be fairly easy to opt out.

[Aubrey]

Even if you can do better I don't care. It is MY kid not the village's. I decide.

 

The "It Takes a Village" Crowd is on another one of their crusades.

 

If you're caring for someone else's kid app 200 days/year, 8+ hours a day, I think you get *some* say. A kid in my care that much of the time will NOT be eating red dye #40 & other stuff that will make him more difficult to handle. If you want to do *that* to him, you *can* keep him.

 

Maybe that's not really the thinking behind all this, lol, but if you hand your kid over to the village, I think it's reasonable to let the village feed him. :001_smile:

[justamouse]

Oh, AND they make the parents pay for that crud or their child goes hungry? Wow.

 

yeah. can you believe it?

[kwg]

From what I can gather the principal put this into effect 6 years ago? SUrely then she would have some data to back up - lower obesity rates or somehting? It is bizarre I think.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story

 

Blech. Doesnt look that great to me but it is kinda hard to tell.

[Cera]

 

As long as homeschooling is an option, I don't see a problem w/ school uniforms or mandated school lunches (assuming, again, that they're *reasonably* healthy, which is gray, lol).

 

Im playing devil's advocate here but the reality is that until the government starts paying parents to stay home with their kids many, many families can't homeschool. It simply isn't an option for them to have a parent give up their job and stay home, they won't be able to provide the basics, let alone enrichment options.

 

We may try public school next year as my oldest is very difficult to teach and wants to try it out. Just because I choose to allow them to try educating her doesn't mean I am giving up any of my parental rights or responsibilities. There is no way they will tell me what I can and can't feed her, even if I have to show up at school and sign her out for lunch every day then sign her back in.

[melissel]

Generally speaking, though, I think that people who fall on your end of the spectrum--organic, whole grains, etc--aren't going to send their kids to ps. So I think the far end of the scale is easier to achieve than people *here* think.

 

I'm sure you're right. But IMO, when it comes to something like this, I don't believe the perceived needs of the many trump the rights of the few. And I'm a screaming liberal! :D

[Jennifer3141]

I see both sides to this. I'm reasonably certain the school isn't feeding the same quality of food I feed to my kids most of the time. However, what on earth are other parents sending with their kids to eat for lunch??

 

I'm chuckling about the "village" comments. If you send your kids to SCHOOL, you are sending them to the village. And then yes, if you as a parents are making such poor choices in nutrition for your kids that the school is reasonably certain they can do better; then yes, the "village" should make better decisions for your child.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Even if you can do better I don't care. It is MY kid not the village's. I decide.

 

The "It Takes a Village" Crowd is on another one of their crusades.

 

I think that the courts have upheld the idea that if you are going to use government schools, you don't have a right to a smorgasbord attitude toward their classes, activities, and probably, lunches.

 

If you want to maintain control of your kids, don't outsource their upbringing to someone else.

 

But then, most of the folks on this board have figured that part out.

[Lovin Learnin]

Didn't the principal say she chose to implement this policy because she saw the awful chips and deserts kids were bringing on FIELD TRIPS. I don't know about you but when I was young that was the best part of a field trip. My mom would let us pick out a single bag of chips and a very unhealthy desert snack or candy bar to take with us. It was the one time a year we were allowed to eat that garbage. The rest of the year our school lunches were filled with healthy options only. So in my case, if she was basing my mother's ability to make healthy choices on my sack lunch for a field trip she would have totally missed the mark.

 

I agree with the previous poster about this being a cash cow. Someone should go into the kitchen at that school to see exactly how healthy those processed lunches are. Yuck

[Murphy101]

If you're caring for someone else's kid app 200 days/year, 8+ hours a day, I think you get *some* say. A kid in my care that much of the time will NOT be eating red dye #40 & other stuff that will make him more difficult to handle. If you want to do *that* to him, you *can* keep him.

 

Maybe that's not really the thinking behind all this, lol, but if you hand your kid over to the village, I think it's reasonable to let the village feed him. :001_smile:

 

Actually, by LAW any parent that can't afford to send their kid elsewhere is required to hand their kid over to the village under penalty of legal action. Supposedly they are there for an education.

 

But no, sending my child anywhere, public or not, for ACADEMICS, does not give that place any of MY parental rights to otherwise provide for MY child as I see fit. It certainly doesn't give them the right to decide how we will eat.

 

Im playing devil's advocate here but the reality is that until the government starts paying parents to stay home with their kids many, many families can't homeschool. It simply isn't an option for them to have a parent give up their job and stay home, they won't be able to provide the basics, let alone enrichment options.

 

We may try public school next year as my oldest is very difficult to teach and wants to try it out. Just because I choose to allow them to try educating her doesn't mean I am giving up any of my parental rights or responsibilities. There is no way they will tell me what I can and can't feed her, even if I have to show up at school and sign her out for lunch every day then sign her back in.

 

I agree.

 

And I am a die hard home schooler who quite frankly would do a little happy dance if all public schools were closed.

 

Mostly bc of exactly the attitude of teachers and schools that they are better than parents or should have parental say over other people's kids.

[littleWMN]

If you're caring for someone else's kid app 200 days/year, 8+ hours a day, I think you get *some* say. A kid in my care that much of the time will NOT be eating red dye #40 & other stuff that will make him more difficult to handle. If you want to do *that* to him, you *can* keep him.

 

Maybe that's not really the thinking behind all this, lol, but if you hand your kid over to the village, I think it's reasonable to let the village feed him. :001_smile:

 

The village feeds my preK'er Poptarts and huge honeybuns for a daily snack. :001_huh:

 

I don't really think it's fair to say "or homeschool" and I'm a huge proponent of homeschooling (homeschool 2 kids, public school for 1).

[Pippen]

Chicago School Bans homemade lunches

 

I foresee an onslaught of children with newfound allergies.

 

Sheesh - can no one see this for the cash cow it really is?

 

 

a

 

I'm pretty sure that by law school's aren't allowed to profit from the school lunch programs.

 

I'd be the first in line to protest if this came our way. We're not ultra healthy eaters but my daughter is one of the only kids at her public school that packs a lunch every day. It's much healthier than the cafeteria offerings, and the processed food entrees often make her sick.

[Slartibartfast]

I would go all crazy on their rears.

 

I have terrible allergies and I don't want my kids eating crap.

 

I would LOSE MY MIND on them like no one could believe.

 

I even complained about the school lunches when dd was in school and I made her lunch. :lol: It was a hack of a lot healthier than the lunch in that picture. White bread, fake cheese, pink milk and tator tots? That's a "healthy" lunch??

 

I would want to see actual examples of what they intended.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Sis

[Audrey]

hmmm........stupid parents, don't they know whose kids those are? Kids belong to the village, idiots!

 

 

You didn't need that comma between 'village' and 'idiots.' ;)

[Wendi]

I'm having a hard time following the logic here. Maybe you can help. The article says:

 

The majority (86%) of students in this district qualify for free or reduced lunch. Can we assume most of those who qualify take advantage of the program, and therefore eat the school lunches already?

 

Low-income kids have an obesity rate of 44%, compared to the overall rate of 33%. Kids overall eat about 30% of their calories at school, and for low-income kids that percentage is even higher.

 

So, low-income kids who eat the cafeteria food in large numbers (because they qualify for free or reduced lunch), and for whom the cafeteria food accounts for a larger percent of their caloric intake than average, are also overweight at a higher rate than average. So the solution to childhood obesity is . . . make MORE kids eat the cafeteria food??!!! :confused: :001_huh: As I read the article, it doesn't seem like eating the cafeteria food is doing the kids any good as it stands. Is it just me? :bigear:

 

Wendi

 

 

Wendi

[Murphy101]

I'm having a hard time following the logic here. Maybe you can help. The article says:

 

The majority (86%) of students in this district qualify for free or reduced lunch. Can we assume most of those who qualify take advantage of the program, and therefore eat the school lunches already?

 

Low-income kids have an obesity rate of 44%, compared to the overall rate of 33%. Kids overall eat about 30% of their calories at school, and for low-income kids that percentage is even higher.

 

So, low-income kids who eat the cafeteria food in large numbers (because they qualify for free or reduced lunch), and for whom the cafeteria food accounts for a larger percent of their caloric intake than average, are also overweight at a higher rate than average. So the solution to childhood obesity is . . . make MORE kids eat the cafeteria food??!!! :confused: :001_huh: As I read the article, it doesn't seem like eating the cafeteria food is doing the kids any good as it stands. Is it just me? :bigear:

 

Wendii

 

Wendi, Wendi, Wendi.... What are you thinking? Using logic and all just doesn't make sense when you are dealing with schools.

[collinsmom1]

Funny... the public schools came about as a result of controling the masses (Europe) and now we are heading to controling the food we eat!! Makes me crazy! We are sucked into being controlled in the name of the children! :cursing:

[Slartibartfast]

Funny... the public schools came about as a result of controling the masses (Europe) and now we are heading to controling the food we eat!! Makes me crazy! We are sucked into being controlled in the name of the children! :cursing:

 

What?

 

I don't agree with that at all. An education was long a privilege of a caste system. An uneducated populace is much easier to control than an educated one.

 

Public schools started in Africa, to teach ancient children the Torah, Sparta also had public "education" Of course those didn't result in a literate populace but they are early examples of "public" education.

[AndyJoy]

Didn't the principal say she chose to implement this policy because she saw the awful chips and deserts kids were bringing on FIELD TRIPS. I don't know about you but when I was young that was the best part of a field trip. My mom would let us pick out a single bag of chips and a very unhealthy desert snack or candy bar to take with us. It was the one time a year we were allowed to eat that garbage. The rest of the year our school lunches were filled with healthy options only. So in my case, if she was basing my mother's ability to make healthy choices on my sack lunch for a field trip she would have totally missed the mark.

 

 

:iagree:My sister and I got Lunchables, chocolate Hostess cupcakes, Capri-Sun, and "expensive" fruit like kiwi on field trip days. The rest of the year we ate school lunches or packed healthier homemade stuff from home.

[Aubrey]

Actually, by LAW any parent that can't afford to send their kid elsewhere is required to hand their kid over to the village under penalty of legal action. Supposedly they are there for an education.

 

But no, sending my child anywhere, public or not, for ACADEMICS, does not give that place any of MY parental rights to otherwise provide for MY child as I see fit. It certainly doesn't give them the right to decide how we will eat.

 

So if a kid came to your house to do hs w/ you & his parents sent a bunch of sugar, HFCS, fake foods & dyes, you'd let him eat it & continue to care for/educate him after the effects of those foods set in?

 

And I am a die hard home schooler who quite frankly would do a little happy dance if all public schools were closed.

 

Mostly bc of exactly the attitude of teachers and schools that they are better than parents or should have parental say over other people's kids.

 

You & I are in 100% agreement on this part!

[Aubrey]

The village feeds my preK'er Poptarts and huge honeybuns for a daily snack. :001_huh:

 

I don't really think it's fair to say "or homeschool" and I'm a huge proponent of homeschooling (homeschool 2 kids, public school for 1).

 

No, I think it's fair to fight w/in the system. There's no excuse for feeding kids bad food. But I do think that there is a certain level of autonomy that's being given up when we send our kids to school.

[forty-two]

So if a kid came to your house to do hs w/ you & his parents sent a bunch of sugar, HFCS, fake foods & dyes, you'd let him eat it & continue to care for/educate him after the effects of those foods set in?

The fact that schools can't do anything about bad behavior until it reaches a really high level (at least that is my impression) is part of the problem, I think. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a big deal to let parents send whatever junk they wanted with their dc to school - b/c if it adversely affected that child's behavior past a reasonable point, so they were a disruption to the learning process, they could send them home or otherwise remove them from class. But since that doesn't seem to be feasible atm, they're stuck with the nanny state solution :glare:.

[Aubrey]

I'm having a hard time following the logic here. Maybe you can help. The article says:

 

The majority (86%) of students in this district qualify for free or reduced lunch. Can we assume most of those who qualify take advantage of the program, and therefore eat the school lunches already?

 

Low-income kids have an obesity rate of 44%, compared to the overall rate of 33%. Kids overall eat about 30% of their calories at school, and for low-income kids that percentage is even higher.

 

So, low-income kids who eat the cafeteria food in large numbers (because they qualify for free or reduced lunch), and for whom the cafeteria food accounts for a larger percent of their caloric intake than average, are also overweight at a higher rate than average. So the solution to childhood obesity is . . . make MORE kids eat the cafeteria food??!!! :confused: :001_huh: As I read the article, it doesn't seem like eating the cafeteria food is doing the kids any good as it stands. Is it just me? :bigear:

 

Wendi

 

 

Wendi

 

This is why I hesitated posting at all--what you've written is absolutely true. And unless this school is doing something *radically* different, this new rule is worse than obscene.

 

BUT I see potential for it being a good idea. And I'm a flaming conservative. :glare::lol:

[Aubrey]

The fact that schools can't do anything about bad behavior until it reaches a really high level (at least that is my impression) is part of the problem, I think. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a big deal to let parents send whatever junk they wanted with their dc to school - b/c if it adversely affected that child's behavior past a reasonable point, so they were a disruption to the learning process, they could send them home or otherwise remove them from class. But since that doesn't seem to be feasible atm, they're stuck with the nanny state solution :glare:.

 

THAT is a really good point.

 

I would LOVE to see these kids sent home for behavior problems along w/ a note about nutrition!

[jennynd]

when I live in Indiana, My kids school did the similar thing. I don't know if that was cross the board. but basically no home packed food. Eveything has to come to school in orginal package.

[Aubrey]

A certain level? Apparently all autonomy. Schools dictate how we dress our kids, now what food we have at home? Here they feed the kids Pop Tarts for breakfast. I wouldn't trust them to feed my kids if they were starving.

 

How our kids dress at school--that one makes sense. How else can you accommodate the wide range of kids represented?

 

I didn't see anybody dictating food at home, but food at school *should* be good food. But I think the institution needs to be held culpable for the nastiness they serve *first.*

 

So, yeah, a school that still defends pop tarts and breakfast pizzas should get ZERO say over home made lunches. But I do think that education would be benefited by an improvement of nutrition. I think it's silly to pretend that there's no link between education & nutrition. Although...not as silly as defending french fries as veggies or pop tarts as breakfast.