So many things are linked when it comes to a snow-ball effect. Take a look at schools that are taking kids farther and farther from their parents. They start off in low-income areas where parents are less involved with the school, and less involved with their kids, to start with. It builds from there, what one school shoves through soon oozes over to more schools.
A big story that is all over the news sites today is about Chicago schools banning kids from bringing their own lunches. The kids are forced to eat school food. So are the parents revolting over this? nope.. it is the kids who are making a stand…
Chicago Tribune: Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school. “Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?” the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English. Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: “We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!” Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: “Do you see the situation?”
The school claims it is to protect kids from themselves.. err really their parents who would be packing those lunches. They (the schools) feel they know best, they know what the kids need.. not the parents, and not the kids. Hum that sure does say a lot about how “well” the school is educating kids, if they do not have confidence in the kids to comprehend proper nutrition.. or did they kill off health classes, believing the kids do not need to know that stuff, since the government will “give” them what they “need”?
The school was “inspired” by a field trip where kids brought soda & chips. Oh the horrors. Again they mentioned it was “A” field trip, not a daily occurence. If sodas were a concern they could have a policy not permitting soda, but they decided to just take 100% control instead of setting rules.
So is this nanny-school system control out of concern for the students, or because they are profiting by some other means?
Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district’s food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.
Yup that makes more sense.. it is not about the school knowing better, or offering better food.. it is because they are getting paid for this service.
At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.
Again the kids are not permitted to bring their own food.. they MUST eat the “soylent green” that the govt deems better for them.
There are parents who feel the school knows better than they do, and have easily handed over their children to the nanny-gov’t-school.
But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the “no home lunch policy” is a good one. “The school food is very healthy,” he said, “and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food.”
Price is one factor, as those who do not “qualify” for school-lunch-programs, still have to pay for the food.. and for many that price is more than a lunch from home would cost. Another issue is the parent-child connection. The special sandwich, the snacks, a note.. just loving connection that is missing when a meal is “issued” by the school.
“… a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk,” education policy professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach wrote in an email. Her son attends Nettelhorst Elementary School in Lakeview. “Not only would mandatory school lunches worsen the dietary quality of most kids’ lunches at Nettelhorst, but it would also cost more out-of-pocket to most parents! There is no chance the parents would stand for that.”
One of the schools mentiond in the article, Little Village, the kids were able to give examples of healthy meals they would like to bring for lunch.. even a 2nd grader knows what is good food, and another child is realistic saying sometimes they would bring something healthy, sometimes they would opt for something like “Lunchables”.
Second-grader Gerardo Ramos said, “I would bring a banana, orange and some grapes.”
“Sometimes I would bring the healthy stuff,” second-grader Julian Ruiz said, “but sometimes I would bring Lunchables.”
Looking at one of the schools highlighted in the article, Little Village Academy in Chicago, what makes up that school explains a lot of why banned bags is not being contested by parents… it is just shy of being ALL Hispanic, I wonder how many of them have illegal-immigrant parents? And perhaps those parents won’t speak up because they have their free-ride child allowing them to stay here?
- As of 2009-2010, there were 733 students enrolled at LITTLE VILLAGE. 99.9% were low-income Students. 7.0% were Special Education Students. 38.6% were Limited English Learners.
- As of 2009-2010, the largest demographic at LITTLE VILLAGE was Hispanic. As of that time, this demographic made up 99.6% of the student population. The second greatest demographic was White at 0.3%.
- This school’s performance rating is based on the CPS Performance Policy. This school earned 64.3% of the available points on the Performance Policy in the 2009-2010 school year, which places the school in Level 2.
Expanding past schools, the other target fast-food… parents who are “unable” to deny their child fast food, unable to say “no”.. they “need” someone to remove the temptation. Much like the Chicago parents who are “ok” with the school taking their children from them.
Townhall: Parents have many responsibilities. Getting the kids up and ready for school, making sure they do their homework and practice proper manners. Parents manage carpools, play-dates and sleepovers; they sooth scraped knees, bruised heads and injured feelings. But perhaps the most basic thing a parent does is feed their children. Feeding a child means more than just spooning mashed carrots into a baby’s mouth or preparing a simple peanut butter and jelly sandwich for a toddler. It requires a firm constitution when children demand a meal mom and dad might not consider healthy.
Most parents deal with these demands by simply saying “no” to the pestering child, but apparently this is a feat too difficult for parents — at least according to one New York City council member.
New York City Councilman Leroy Comrie, jumps on the San Francisco BAN-wagon (see San Francisco’s Happy Meal toy ban). Comrie focuses on the spoiled brats, who demand the toys & meals.. and the parents who have no control and are “forced” to buckle to these powerful children. Comrie also points out his own weight as a reason, since he himself has no control.. he feels that the govt should control what we ALL eat.
Come 2012, kids in San Francisco will not be getting a free toy with their McDonald’s Happy Meal
Parham explained the harrowing ordeal she faces saying no to her children’s constant demands for McDonald’s: “Needless to say, my answer was no, and as usual, pouting ensued and a little bit of a disagreement between us. This doesn’t stop with one request. It’s truly a litany of requests.” Does anyone truly believe that Parham’s children won’t still demand french fries, even when packaged without a toy?
Parham captures perfectly how the ( Center for Science in the Public Interest) CSPI views parents: spineless, weak, and at the mercy of children and advertisers. While the CSPI might try to portray itself as being on the side of these poor overwhelmed moms and dads, the truth is the CSPI has nothing but contempt for parents. They view parents as hapless creatures, incapable of making sound decisions about when—and when not—to give their children a treat. American parents everywhere should recoil from this kind of government paternalism.
I do get a kick out of the idea parents would feel forced to submit to their child’s tantrums. Instead it could be a lesson in discipline, in limits, and in appreciating things by not getting their way every time they make a demand. Imagine that these people find it easier to sue, to change the restaurants, and laws.. rather than discipline their own child. Wow.
But again, what is this trend showing us? Does it start to sound like old sci-fi movies? Where kids are removed from parents at birth, and raised by the “state”?
Again Thank you Katie for pointing me to the Chicago article.. even if you don’t have kids, this is something to pay attention to, and to fight. This is the kind of chaos that simply does not end well.