An irreverent, inclusive, alternative parenting community
Food Bans At School?
Tomorrow is NB's first day of kindergarten and I don't know if this is a local area thing or an all over thing, but a lot of our schools have started banning "junk" food. My brother's high school banned school "supplied" junk food a few years ago and replaced all the sodas in vending machines with bottled waters, gator aid, and that kind of thing. Same thing with the snacks. NB's school, despite a seeming obsession with chocolate milk, has done the same thing.
And it's not just school supplied anymore either. We decided to pack NB's lunch and snack most days because she is VERY picky. Example: If the school serves ham and cheese, she will refuse to eat it, even though she likes it because, "It's not the same as OUR ham and cheese." At her orientation we were given a packet of information, including a list of "acceptable" items for lunches and snacks. If she is bringing her own snacks we are responsible for making sure it is a healthy snack and the only drink she is allowed to bring for snack time is bottled water. The same goes for her lunches, except I can send juice or something in her thermos, but no soda or carbonated beverages of any kind.
A friend of mine, who's little girl starts K at another school got an even more detailed list. Only baked chips are allowed, absolutely NO candy or cookies or sweets of any kind, etc.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining really. I think it's pretty awesome that the schools in our area are starting to take an interest in nutrition, but really.... NO COOKIES??! Ever?
I kind of feel that if NB has a pretty balanced, solid, healthy lunch that it's not really harming her to throw in a couple of oreos now and again.
Do they do this at schools in your areas?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by GreenLantern on -
I never said kids should go work. Thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I knew that WIC is pretty specific as to what food you can get, but I didn't realize it stopped at 5 years old.
Ruth, I understand exactly what Kat was saying, and while she says she didn't feel entitled to it, she did say that it made economic sense.
Listen, I've seen the abuse of this system first hand. There are lots of other social welfare programs out there to get food in the bellies of kids. The more you offer freebies, the less productive a society becomes. That's just how it is, and I don't like seeing more and more freebies given out. Some of us don't like being in that situation, and work our way out of it, but many people don't. That's the reality of the situation.
-
Permalink Reply by kommishoner on -
I guess I don't see the link that giving things away makes people less productive. I think people do what they can with what they have. I also don't think it's "reality" that people abuse the system - for example, the notion of "welfare queens" was largely debunked.
I also don't think it's my (or anyone's, except maybe the agencies who determine qualification for benefits) to judge whether people who get "freebies" (which are not, in fact, free, but whatever) deserve them or not, nor is it my business whether they take too much or just enough or do it for good reasons or bad reasons or whatever. Moralizing about poverty is just not my bag; there are not "good" poor people and "bad" poor people, there are just people with a lot of tough decisions to make. See also my comment here.
GreenLantern said:I never said kids should go work. Thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I knew that WIC is pretty specific as to what food you can get, but I didn't realize it stopped at 5 years old.
Ruth, I understand exactly what Kat was saying, and while she says she didn't feel entitled to it, she did say that it made economic sense.
Listen, I've seen the abuse of this system first hand. There are lots of other social welfare programs out there to get food in the bellies of kids. The more you offer freebies, the less productive a society becomes. That's just how it is, and I don't like seeing more and more freebies given out. Some of us don't like being in that situation, and work our way out of it, but many people don't. That's the reality of the situation.
-
Permalink Reply by wookie on -
I never said kids should go work. Thanks for putting those words in my mouth. It was hyperbole (but not as funny as hyperbole and a half). It was not intended to reflect your line of argument in the slightest, GL.
There is a lot of troubling things about poverty. It's called a rut for a reason.
As a computer/developer/admin/programmer type, the only analogy I have is this:
The world falls into three groups.
Those who don't know anything (and may or may not be a threat through ignorance).
Those who know enough to be dangerous/those who *think* they know what they are doing but don't.
Those who actually know what they are doing, but that I trust not to be dangerous.
But I can't make policy on who should have what access based on those three groups. There is no litmus test for competency, and no litmus test for "this person is a dickhead, but this guy over hear is okay".
The same problem comes up in society. Yes, there are dickheads. And there are people who are lazy, people who feel entitled to the Free Lunch whether literal or metaphorical. But this occurs with pretty much equal distribution in all socio-economic, racial, gender, etc. groups.
But there are also (a trait, by the way, found in all socio-economic brackets) those who need help because they either lack the capacity to "better" themselves, or who use that help temporarily to better themselves. Perhaps they are too young, too old or too ill to have enough effect on the world around them to be self-supporting.
The support systems in place in almost every civilized society exists to support those people. It is clearly understood and accepted that there will always be a "wastage" so to speak, on people who are cheating. But since it is impossible for anyone to make that kind of value judgement, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, either. There is no litmus test for telling apart those two groups.
I must be tired, these metaphors are getting terrible.
At any rate, there are lots of programs in place to try and chip away at those who find themselves in the poverty rut as part of the generational "I don't know any other way" problem. Literacy programs, back to school programs, stay in school programs, career counselling, "essential skills" training, etc. etc. etc. None of them are overwhelmingly effective, but almost all of them help somewhat.
But there are many alternatives out there, South America, many parts of Africa, lots of places don't have the same priorities. I think our system is much preferable.
-
Permalink Reply by Kat on -
The whole point of these programs is economics. They help a family survive economically.
Again, "feeling entitled" sounds incredibly judgemental.
Lets review my participation in the program one more time:
We "qualified" for a program that provided gov't subsidies for my children's school lunches.
We then "participated" in said program.
The program improved my family's economic profile (or, made "ecomonic sense").
Because we "qualified".
Should it NOT have made economic sense? It helped my children get the nutrition they needed because it offset the cost of said nutrition. As a result, my overall household budget was helped.
(I guess in your assessment, this means that I had more money to pay for the beamer, but .... surprise.... didn't have one.)
I don't get your point and resent your insinuation that my participation in this program was because I "felt" entitled.
The intake person at the program doesn't ask you "so, how do you feel today? feel like some free food? think you deserve something you really don't need?".
No.
They ask you for your paystub and for the number of people in your household, give you paperwork to fill out, and crunch some numbers. They determine your eligibility based on some formula. We happened to qualify.
All this judgmental BS causes a lot of families who DO in qualify for these programs to avoid participating, and so they struggle needlessly when help is available to them. Someone is always right there trying to make a point that they "feel entitled".
Ruth, I understand exactly what Kat was saying, and while she says she didn't feel entitled to it, she did say that it made economic sense.
-
Permalink Reply by mcglory13 on -
Yes, economic sense like, do we get to keep a roof over our head or do we eat? Oh, we can get help getting food? Sweet! We can do both!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
© 2012 Created by Offsprunger.
Powered by
