State determines preschooler's home packed lunch not good enough... supplements with chicken nuggets meal/or four year old doesn't like bag lunch

[Heavy Horse]

Not just the article - Scot's title and the first how many pages of this thread? Even after factual corrections were made? But then you'd know that, if you read the whole thing.

I did read it, not sure how that affects what I'm saying. If Scot has misspoke it's got nothing to do with me. I am speaking from my own investigation into the topic and my thoughts on it.

Anyway, I'll shut up now.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

You were repeating some of the misconceptions and not acknowledging some of the rest of the problems with this thread. That's what spawned this whole whirligig where Bones accused you of not reading the thread the first time. That's not on Scot.

[Guest Raidne]

Was it explicitly explain to the parents that 1) lunches would be inspected and 2) lunches must contain such and 3) supplements would be supplied? If so I missed it.

Yes, the letter even mentioned that should there be repeat problems, the parents might even be charged for the supplemental lunch. That's where all this crap about charging came from. The pre-K student was not charged in this case.

On the school in Chicago:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/tribnation/2011/04/q-a-do-chicago-schools-really-ban-kids-from-bringing-lunch-to-school.html

Note the article says that an exhaustive search to turn up any other school doing this besides Little Valley Academy found none, and that school no longer practices this policy either. Other schools will confiscate certain items. This is the school:

http://www.lva.cps.k12.il.us/lva/HOME.html

This school - a bilingual school on the west side of Chicago, has increased their standardized test scores and was designated a "school to watch" for the last three years running, but naturally they only get press and hate mail for mandating school lunch.

[litechick]

Scot, you have my sympathy.

It's a damn shame that you are being treated like this.

[Verboten]

Like what? I seriously see nothing wrong or offensive here. People can disagree over the internet, it's not the end of the world.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Litechick,

Thanks. I did overreact, a bit, to the original article. It's cool.

[Heavy Horse]

You were repeating some of the misconceptions and not acknowledging some of the rest of the problems with this thread. That's what spawned this whole whirligig where Bones accused you of not reading the thread the first time. That's not on Scot.

Yes, the letter even mentioned that should there be repeat problems, the parents might even be charged for the supplemental lunch. That's where all this crap about charging came from. The pre-K student was not charged in this case.

On the school in Chicago:

http://newsblogs.chi...-to-school.html

Note the article says that an exhaustive search to turn up any other school doing this besides Little Valley Academy found none, and that school no longer practices this policy either. Other schools will confiscate certain items. This is the school:

http://www.lva.cps.k...s/lva/HOME.html

This school - a bilingual school on the west side of Chicago, has increased their standardized test scores and was designated a "school to watch" for the last three years running, but naturally they only get press and hate mail for mandating school lunch.

I stand chastised...

I've so far read on wards of (I don't even know how many) articles of varying detail and I've not really found a clear picture on the issue. So maybe you all are using a different google than I. It seems the only point of contention is whether the parent was charged.... Which I discount as unimportant IMO. As to whether the inspections are and do happen is unclear. So correct me if I missed something. The lunch bag inspection is and will continue to be my main concern.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

*sigh*

This was a program parents volunteered their children to be a part of knowing more or less what that entailed.

If it was a privately run, privately financed program, that's fine. But if it is a taxpayer-financed program that establishes eligibility/compliance criteria that are intrusive, it is perfectly fair point of objection. The fact that it is "voluntary" doesn't matter much unless there were other alternatives made available to the parents that omitted the objectionable policing of food. Otherwise, you've got a government-funded program with bogus compliance requirements.

[awesome possum]

So if this were instituted at mandatory age public schools you would be against it?

I don't think it would ever happen, but if it did? I'd be against it because it seems wasteful, but not because I disagree with the idea of providing extra food to children if someone believes they have an ill-prepared meal. Even if it means they get it wrong from time to time, I'd rather a hundred kids have too much food than just one not enough.

If a child is being offered meals the parent did not agree to, when the parent has already chosen food from home for the child to eat, that's an infringement of parental authority (morally if not legally).

So I guess myself and millions of other Americans should be talking to our lawyers about the infringement of parental authority performed by grandparents, aunts and uncles and close friends of the family every single day in this country. Really, it's an epidemic. I think at least 1/4 of McDonald's sales are grandparents taking their grandchildren out to eat.

If it was a privately run, privately financed program, that's fine. But if it is a taxpayer-financed program that establishes eligibility/compliance criteria that are intrusive, it is perfectly fair point of objection. The fact that it is "voluntary" doesn't matter much unless there were other alternatives made available to the parents that omitted the objectionable policing of food. Otherwise, you've got a government-funded program with bogus compliance requirements.

No. Just... no.

[snake]

What I find silly is all this nonsense of inspecting lunches and confiscating unhealthy items and supplementing healthy ones. It would make more sense to do what the school in Chicago did. Ban home packed lunches and require students to eat at the cafeteria, with exceptions for medical reasons. Then you could provide healthy choices for all the kids. Parents who could not afford it would have financial help in the form of free or discounted lunches.

IMO, that makes more sense than all the other bullshit they're trying.

[Heavy Horse]

No. Just... no.

Maybe I'm being thick, but what is exactly do you object to in this statement(s)?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

What about kosher and Halal eaters.

[Verboten]

Snake,

What about kosher and Halal eaters.

We also get permission to bring in our own food at school events where food will be served, just so you know.

[Chise]

,,,,man, while providing far too much entertainment by reading this thread... my brain keeps tryin to remember school and living on french fries each lunch for something like 4 years and how clearly the school gave No Fucks Whatsoever

[Verboten]

Also, do you have any particular attachment to those who wish to eat only kosher or halal food or are you just using us a prop for your increasingly desperate argument?

[Guest Raidne]

HH, I had the day off yesterday and it actually took me quite awhile to sort through the major media bullshit, so no worries. I'm pretty sure all of it is documented in the stuff Aoife & I linked earlier in the thread though.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Verboten,

Why does it matter if I do or do not have a personal attachment to students who have religous meal restrictions? For the record I am an Orthodox Christian. During fast periods we are to eat, essentially, a vegan diet. If one of my children were in public school and chose to fast strictly I would be disappointed if they were told they must eat what the cafeteria offered over their religious objections.

[Verboten]

Verboten,

Why does it matter if I do or do not have a personal attachment to students who have religous meal restrictions? For the record I am an Orthodox Christian. During fast periods we are to eat, essentially, a vegan diet. If one of my children were in public school and chose to fast strictly I would be disappointed if they were told they must eat what the cafeteria offered over their religious objections.

Okay use that argument next time.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Verboten,

Why does it matter if I do or do not have a personal attachment to students who have religous meal restrictions? For the record I am an Orthodox Christian. During fast periods we are to eat, essentially, a vegan diet. If one of my children were in public school and chose to fast strictly I would be disappointed if they were told they must eat what the cafeteria offered over their religious objections.

If only there were a tool one could use, or a repository of state-provided information, that might cover the state's policy for schools if the kids need substitutions to meet Jewish or other religious dietary restrictions, or even medical reasons!

ETA: I had so much code that I forgot part of my sarcasm sentence. I was going to just leave it, but it's been bugging me.

Also, I thank you for giving me a reason to indulge my compulsive need to look shit up on the internet, but you really didn't need to.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Verboten,

You didn't answer my question. What would be wrong with an athiest concerned about religious liberties asking a question about Orthodox kids during fast periods?

Aoife,

I'm surprised not at all. Thank you.