Chicago school bans homemade lunches

[littleWMN]

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.

 

I agree with that (giving up autonomy), trust me. But you seriously think things like Rice Krispy treats and Poptarts for snack are better than what parents would send? What I'm saying is that they aren't making better choices as far as healthy food. Sure, I'm sure some parents send crap but not all. I'd even agree to regulations (no candy, no soda, no dessert even). But this? Crazy. Don't agree. It's about money not health.

[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.

 

Sorry to quote you twice. I've been thinking about this.

 

Why do we send our kids to ps? I think very, very few people would say that they send them for an education. It's government-funded day care. We send our kids to ps because we can't afford to do anything else w/ them. *Of course* there are exceptions.

 

But...to me...parenting is my responsibility. I don't get to quit because I can't afford to do it. And if I DO quit because I can't afford it, I don't get to step in & tell the guy who's taken over how it has to be done.

 

There's a difference between a) being poor & single & sending your kids to school for an education & b) checking out as a parent. Poverty can cause the latter, but I don't think it's an excuse for it. I think that if we take. responsibility. for. our. kids. we won't have these problems w/ school lunches. If we *expect* to raise them, we won't have as many issues w/ other people trying to help us.

 

Most people expect the government to provide free child care so they can work, & not all of these people are too poor for hs/private school. But that's not even my point--the people who *care* about what their kids eat will feed them better & fight laws like this. These laws aren't showing up in rich neighborhoods, kwim? For one thing, their cafeterias probably serve better food to begin w/.

 

But even if I'm wrong about it all--the poor kids are eating these lunches. The better-off kids are bringing their own. Assuming the parents of the latter fight this law, the result will probably be better food for *everybody* in the cafeteria & a return of the parents' rights to feed their kids. Threaten the well-off w/ the plight of the poor, & suddenly the poor have more powerful advocates. Even if we look at it that way, I think it's brilliant.

[Aubrey]

I agree with that (giving up autonomy), trust me. But you seriously think things like Rice Krispy treats and Poptarts for snack are better than what parents would send? What I'm saying is that they aren't making better choices as far as healthy food. Sure, I'm sure some parents send crap but not all. I'd even agree to regulations (no candy, no soda, no dessert even). But this? Crazy. Don't agree. It's about money not health.

 

In my first post, I said that I envisioned a school radically changed, ala Jaime Oliver.

 

No, the avg American school should NOT do this. :001_smile:

[Aubrey]

Yeah I'd be extra PO'd if I had to pay for it. If you force me to do it, you pay for it too.

 

Since when do schools get to take their control this far though? I get it, I have to give up a say over a lot of things. I don't get to say which math program they use, but what my kid eats for lunch? I can live with them imposing restrictions (no candy, for example), but to outright reject that I make my child's lunch? No way. One of my kids is the pickiest person alive. He'd starve everyday if forced to eat the school lunch.

 

The alternative is for taxpayers to pay for it. :lol:

[readinmom]

I'm sure this is just one of many changes coming in public school. I wonder if anyone of these parents is game enough for a class action lawsuit? Public school = free education, therefore, no lunch = free lunch for all?

[littleWMN]

In my first post, I said that I envisioned a school radically changed, ala Jaime Oliver.

 

No, the avg American school should NOT do this. :001_smile:

 

I apologize bc my "tone" may have sounded rude. I just don't think it's a good idea to trust the govt to your child's health. And I realize that sounds hypocritical bc I have a child in school. She is there though bc of some special needs the school meets, not bc we use it as daycare or can't afford anything else. Our school is BRAND new this year, smart boards in every room, wealthy district... all that to say it's not just poverty stricken schools that serve junk for food.

[Aubrey]

I apologize bc my "tone" may have sounded rude. I just don't think it's a good idea to trust the govt to your child's health. And I realize that sounds hypocritical bc I have a child in school. She is there though bc of some special needs the school meets, not bc we use it as daycare or can't afford anything else. Our school is BRAND new this year, smart boards in every room, wealthy district... all that to say it's not just poverty stricken schools that serve junk for food.

 

Oh, "tone" --when it comes to ps--is entirely defensible imo. :001_smile: I hope I haven't come across rude, either. I'm really, really conservative, & I'd be spitting nails if this happened in our district & I had a kid in school.

 

AND although I'm a die-hard hs'er, I know there are reasons to send kids to ps. I just think that most parents who send their kids to school for reasons other than free childcare would fight this law & it would be moot.

 

Otoh, if they ARE feeding kids better there, I think that that has huge potential for good. Is banning home-made lunches the way to do that? I don't know, I'm just not automatically against it. :001_smile:

[mcconnellboys]

I agree that many parents today do not eat properly, themselves, and certainly do not know how to properly feed their children. However, our government has a large responsibility in that because they have helped shift the way our foods are grown, handled, and manufactured (through subsidies, etc.).

 

The types of foods that most school cafeterias are serving are not a bit better than whatever kids could be bringing in their lunches from home (they can trade off with others even if eating school meals, refuse to eat, sneak foods in their backpacks, etc.)

 

If the school wants to ban home packed foods and show the kids how to eat properly by providing truly appropriate meals of healthy, nutrient dense foods, then I'm all for it. Some schools have taken the challenge to switch over their cafeterias to healthy foods - but most have NOT. Until they do, I would not want my child eating there daily.

[arghmatey]

Yes, let's allow the government to decide what to feed our children. I just threw up a little in my mouth. So gross!

[Audrey]

In my first post, I said that I envisioned a school radically changed, ala Jaime Oliver.

 

No, the avg American school should NOT do this. :001_smile:

 

Except that Jamie Oliver was NOT able to enact radical change in those schools long-term because the school boards/divisions would not or could not commit the money it would take to continue the program, nor to train other lunch ladies to cook in that way, nor to pay them for the extra time it would take to make food that way, nor for real-food ingredients needed to cook that way. Where he could get them to commit, it was not a long-term commitment. He was fighting the bureaucracy every step of the way.

 

It comes down to the cha-ching, cha-ching. Every. Time.

[MischiefManaged]

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

 

hey.... we like our tater tots! :) :lol:

[mcconnellboys]

I've just been reading that for the first time in history, overweight children are actually being diagnosed with nutritional deficiencies such as rickets. What more evidence do we need that the "Western diet" is anathema to human beings?

[Aubrey]

I agree that many parents today do not eat properly, themselves, and certainly do not know how to properly feed their children. However, our government has a large responsibility in that because they have helped shift the way our foods are grown, handled, and manufactured (through subsidies, etc.).

 

YES! And while that makes their ability to remedy the situation in the cafeteria questionable, it does establish a reason for them to be rectifying the situation. If they'd quit labeling "trash" as "food" everything from McDonald's to school cafeterias would improve (or shut down).

[Aubrey]

Except that Jamie Oliver was NOT able to enact radical change in those schools long-term because the school boards/divisions would not or could not commit the money it would take to continue the program, nor to train other lunch ladies to cook in that way, nor to pay them for the extra time it would take to make food that way, nor for real-food ingredients needed to cook that way. Where he could get them to commit, it was not a long-term commitment. He was fighting the bureaucracy every step of the way.

 

It comes down to the cha-ching, cha-ching. Every. Time.

 

See...I thought they *were* able to achieve all of those things. I know it was short-lived, but I thought that was essentially because of previously signed contracts & politics.

[Aubrey]

I've just been reading that for the first time in history, overweight children are actually being diagnosed with nutritional deficiencies such as rickets. What more evidence do we need that the "Western diet" is anathema to human beings?

 

Yeah, I was just thinking about this the other day--swollen bellies in 3rd world countries & swollen bellies here. Diseases there, diabetes here. And really...bodies in both places are *starving* even if stomachs aren't.

[Kim in Appalachia]

Really? Kids are forced to buy lunch? I could not afford to buy lunch for all 5 of my kids everyday. That's nuts. Yes, I believe they are doing it to get money.

[Murphy101]

My home is not a place where I am PAID and EMPLOYED to accept the kids who walk in the door. If it were, I'd quit if I couldn't handle the requirement of the job or felt my employer was unreasonable. Only a govt funded institution would think the proper response of an employee is to tell their clients/boss how to dress and eat for the convenience of the employee.

 

As for the rest of your post.

 

Vicious cycle.

 

No one wants to have to pay the cost of a living wage for every working citizen

 

But everyone wants to whine about those same underpaid people using the system

 

low income wage workers must by law send their kids to public schools, and do their best to work around that free daycare option to make the most of their crummy paycheck.

 

Low income parents complain about schools usurping their parenting

 

They are told that is what they get for sending their kids there. The deadbeats! How dare those poor people think they should be able to make the same decisions about their children as their betters?!

 

Do many people view school, any school option, as free daycare? Sure they do. That does not necessarily mean they don't expect an education or should have to give up their parenting rights.

 

I think the view that if parents are taking responsibility there would not be as many issues with the people trying to "help" them is flat out wrong. Good grief. Just look at how hostile some school teachers are about home schooling! Bottom line is most of the busy bodies thinking they have the right to "help" will only think you are being a responsible parent if you happen to agree with them.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Martha

[joannqn]

Really? Kids are forced to buy lunch? I could not afford to buy lunch for all 5 of my kids everyday. That's nuts. Yes, I believe they are doing it to get money.

 

Yeah, I know. I calculated the cost of feeding my four school lunch (at those prices, I don't know what it costs locally) and I just couldn't do it.

 

$9 a day

$180 a month

$1620 per school year

 

So, they can eat nasty tasting junk food rather than a turkey and cheese sandwich on whole wheat with romaine lettuce and tomato, a piece of fruit, and maybe a homemade cookie.

[Penelope]

In my first post, I said that I envisioned a school radically changed, ala Jaime Oliver.

 

No, the avg American school should NOT do this. :001_smile:

 

But that's still an issue. Not all of us think Jaime Oliver's menus are super healthy, either. Better than average, yes. But still should not be forced.

[Penelope]

LOL

 

Well it's kinda funny because everyone says "taxpayers" as if this is a mythical group of fairies. This is pretty much all of us. Even if a person rents, they are paying taxes.

 

Not usually for schools, they aren't. In the places I have lived, most of school funding comes from property taxes, plus some federal money. Not everyone pays federal taxes.

[ktgrok]

The VPK programs in my area already have banned home made lunches. A friend has her son in one and he has food issues and refuses to eat their lunches. Absolutely refuses. So he just doesn't eat. He is there for an extended day because she works and so he goes at least 8 hours every day with no food, at 3 years old. He is losing weight and is miserable, and they won't let her send him food. This has gone on for over a month now. I told her to get a doctor's note, as it is VERY unhealthy for him to skip meals every day like this while growing.

[Meriwether]

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

 

I'd take out that bolded comma.

 

ETA: After reading the whole thread, I see I'm not the first to find that funny.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Meriwether

[Jenny in Florida]

Not usually for schools, they aren't. In the places I have lived, most of school funding comes from property taxes, plus some federal money. Not everyone pays federal taxes.

 

But even a renter is contributing. Renters pay the homeowners, who use a portion of the rent to pay the property taxes.

[In The Great White North]

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.

 

 

Actually, up here, they have said exactly that.

 

We can choose one (or more) class, any extra-curriculars we want. Ds took one math class in 12th. Dd too German IV and French III last year, French IV this year and will take French V and Spanish II next year. DD(2) has taken band. All three will swim all four years on the high school swim team.

 

And, no, meals are NOT mandatory.

 

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

 

 

The article said the food service was contracted to a private company. I'd be willing to bet that they ARE making a profit.

[kewb]

I think the whole thing is ridiculous.

 

When my kids were in ps they banned cupcakes on birthdays. I thought that was insane. The 22 cupcakes received over 10 months in school to celebrate a birthday were not responsible for childhood obesity. The school lunches provided-chicken nuggets, pizza, fries, and other assorted kid friendly foods consumed daily probably contributed to the obesity issue. There was always one healthier option on the menu but one has to wonder how many kids really chose it.

 

Proper education on nutrition and access to the healthy foods will cure childhood obesity. Processed garbage is cheaper and easier then soaking beans overnight and cooking the next day, then mashing them with seasonings, then grating your own raw milk cheddar cheese, and then making a weeks supply of bean and cheese burritos.

 

Forcing kids to eat mass produced cafeteria is not even a bandaid on the problem it is just a political move to make it look like the schools are tackling the childhood obesity issue.

[Margaret in GA]

My home is not a place where I am PAID and EMPLOYED to accept the kids who walk in the door. If it were, I'd quit if I couldn't handle the requirement of the job or felt my employer was unreasonable. Only a govt funded institution would think the proper response of an employee is to tell their clients/boss how to dress and eat for the convenience of the employee.

 

As for the rest of your post.

 

Vicious cycle.

 

No one wants to have to pay the cost of a living wage for every working citizen

 

But everyone wants to whine about those same underpaid people using the system

 

low income wage workers must by law send their kids to public schools, and do their best to work around that free daycare option to make the most of their crummy paycheck.

 

Low income parents complain about schools usurping their parenting

 

They are told that is what they get for sending their kids there. The deadbeats! How dare those poor people think they should be able to make the same decisions about their children as their betters?!

 

Do many people view school, any school option, as free daycare? Sure they do. That does not necessarily mean they don't expect an education or should have to give up their parenting rights.

 

I think the view that if parents are taking responsibility there would not be as many issues with the people trying to "help" them is flat out wrong. Good grief. Just look at how hostile some school teachers are about home schooling! Bottom line is most of the busy bodies thinking they have the right to "help" will only think you are being a responsible parent if you happen to agree with them.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[ciyates]

I haven't read all the post ...but my sister is a lunch lady!:lol::lol: Yeap she has a degree in nutrition and regularly receives continuous educations on childhood nutrition. We are from South Mississippi ( a very, very poor area) and most of the school is on the federal free lunch program. Due to that she has very strict guidelines on what can and cannot be served. They are only allowed to serve "junk food" (pizza, corn dogs, ice cream, etc) once a month. Each child is required to take one entree, veggie and fruit. Overall they are very nutrious meals (for a school lunch ;) ).

 

I don't aprove of the school having the authority to ban homemade lunches. If I want to send my kid to school with soda and pop rocks that should be my choice.

[Sara R]

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.

 

 

On bad days with my infants and toddlers, I would think that God made babies hard to take care of (needing feeding every few hours, not sleeping through the night, not toilet trained) to protect them from being warehoused.

[Murphy101]

Here the schools can make a profit off lunch programs. I know this is true. The schools sell advertising and concession space during breakfast and lunch times to venders and franchises. The high school near me has a taco bell day, a McD day, pepsi and coke signs..

 

They also private contract the state meals program for free meals for low income kids.

[Margaret in GA]

I haven't read all the post ...but my sister is a lunch lady!:lol::lol: Yeap she has a degree in nutrition and regularly receives continuous educations on childhood nutrition. We are from South Mississippi ( a very, very poor area) and most of the school is on the federal free lunch program. Due to that she has very strict guidelines on what can and cannot be served. They are only allowed to serve "junk food" (pizza, corn dogs, ice cream, etc) once a month. Each child is required to take one entree, veggie and fruit. Overall they are very nutrious meals (for a school lunch ;) ).

 

I don't aprove of the school having the authority to ban homemade lunches. If I want to send my kid to school with soda and pop rocks that should be my choice.

 

I do think schools are trying to be healthier, but I also believe that they are (for the most part) still not really nutritional meals. I think they are still full of preservatives and deep fried as you can see here:

 

http://www.jackson.k12.ms.us/content.aspx?url=/page/202

 

Looks like every day resembles this one (below) in which there is at least one very unhealthy choice like cheeseburger or pizza or fried fish sandwich next to a moderately healthy option.

 

Choice of One Entrée

 

Hot Dog w/Chili on Wheat Bun

Large Chicken Salad

Choice of Side Dishes Potato Wedges,

Seasoned Green Beans, Carrot Sticks w/ Ranch Dip Frozen Mixed Fruit Cup Grapes

[Mrs Mungo]

Except that Jamie Oliver was NOT able to enact radical change in those schools long-term because the school boards/divisions would not or could not commit the money it would take to continue the program, nor to train other lunch ladies to cook in that way, nor to pay them for the extra time it would take to make food that way, nor for real-food ingredients needed to cook that way. Where he could get them to commit, it was not a long-term commitment. He was fighting the bureaucracy every step of the way.

 

It comes down to the cha-ching, cha-ching. Every. Time.

 

Exactly. Many schools actually don't have cooks *at all* anymore. The food is contracted out and brought into the school each day. The school lunch project blog is an example of that.

 

I agree with a lot of what Martha said.

 

Not usually for schools, they aren't. In the places I have lived, most of school funding comes from property taxes, plus some federal money. Not everyone pays federal taxes.

 

I think you mean federal income taxes which is totally different than not paying federal taxes.

 

from factcheck:

earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes.

 

My mom also works with child nutrition in the public schools, and she has for over 20 years. What is interesting are the changes she has seen over that time frame. For example, tons of kids used to eat lasagna. They took lasagna off of their menus a few years ago because so many kids would not eat it.

 

There was a time they served steamed broccoli. My mom said about half of the kids ate the steamed broccoli. Now, they serve it raw with ranch dressing (because someone has the idea it's healthier raw, never mind the ranch dressing that probably negates that). My mom said almost no kids eat it raw.

[ciyates]

I do think schools are trying to be healthier, but I also believe that they are (for the most part) still not really nutritional meals. I think they are still full of preservatives and deep fried as you can see here:

 

http://www.jackson.k12.ms.us/content.aspx?url=/page/202

 

Looks like every day resembles this one (below) in which there is at least one very unhealthy choice like cheeseburger or pizza or fried fish sandwich next to a moderately healthy option.

 

Choice of One Entrée

 

Hot Dog w/Chili on Wheat Bun

Large Chicken Salad

Choice of Side Dishes Potato Wedges,

Seasoned Green Beans, Carrot Sticks w/ Ranch Dip Frozen Mixed Fruit Cup Grapes

 

Her school district is on the coast. It is actually Pass Christian. I am not sure if Jackson is school that is considered under the same guidelines. If the school qualifies for free lunches (more than 75%) then they must follow these guidelines. She actually has her menus and records audited every few months to make sure they are in compliance. I spoke to her today about this and they cook everything. Sometimes they have to be very creative. Because they are so heavily subsidize they get some pretty odd fruits and veggies. They once got several case of dragon fruit which did not go over well.

[Spy Car]

Over my dead body.

 

The school "lunches" served in our school district are as bad as the fare the "Happy Meals crowd" seems to think is fitting food for children. No thanks!

 

A "lunch" here only costs a dollar with milk, fruit and and entree with sides, so I doubt there is a big profit for the district even with USDA subsidies.

 

Bill

[Halcyon]

If anyone's interested, our local school district publishes their menu, and it's HORRID.

 

http://www.sbmc.org/new/docs/repository/2009/2009-2010_cafeteria_menu_elementary.pdf

 

WTH is a "crispy corn popper" anyways???

[Slartibartfast]

But even if I'm wrong about it all--the poor kids are eating these lunches. The better-off kids are bringing their own. Assuming the parents of the latter fight this law, the result will probably be better food for *everybody* in the cafeteria & a return of the parents' rights to feed their kids. Threaten the well-off w/ the plight of the poor, & suddenly the poor have more powerful advocates. Even if we look at it that way, I think it's brilliant.

 

That's a pretty good point

[RoundAbout]

If anyone's interested, our local school district publishes their menu, and it's HORRID.

 

http://www.sbmc.org/new/docs/repository/2009/2009-2010_cafeteria_menu_elementary.pdf

 

WTH is a "crispy corn popper" anyways???

 

Wow that *is* horrid. Every other day is pizza or nuggets or corn dog bites? Yikes. This really feeds into the "kid cuisine" phenomenon in the US. One of the things I appreciated about living overseas is that the children's menu at restaurants was often just a scaled portion of adult offerings )if there was any kid option at all).

 

I remember in junior high school we used to use napkins to soak up the grease floating on the top of the cafeteria pizza. Looks like things haven't changed much. I think some parents pack crap but I also know what my kid is actually going to eat and what he isn't (he hates chicken an is 'meh' about pizza but will snarf falafel or meatballs). Even if the school lunch is healthy, I'd rather have the freedom to pack a lunch that I know my son will actually enjoy and will get him through the day rather than hope the school is serving something that won't end up in the trash.

 

This whole thing reminds me of a story a while ago about a school in NM or Arizona that had banned white flour. In the article they literally confiscated a kid's home brought bean burrito because it was made with a white flour tortilla and replaced it with school provided PB and honey on whole wheat. This was a school that had a large Hispanic population. Not only was it culturally insensitive (if not outright racist) someone ran the numbers and pointed out that a bean burrito, even with a white flour tortilla, actually has more fiber and less sugar than the school provided alternative.

[Word Nerd]

Why do we send our kids to ps? I think very, very few people would say that they send them for an education.

 

:confused: What is your generalization based on? Actual conversations with real people?