We're talking about Chicago and your insisting the guy should get the benefit of the doubt. Absurd in light of all the facts we've shed on the matter.

I am NOT for the status quo. I am for banning the program altogether. No school lunches, breakfast, dinner, bedtime snack or anything! Let the parents make the determination what a child eats. When the court rules a parent unfit to parent a child, THEN the state can come into the picture. Until then, the state should stay out. How's that for changing the status quo.

Obviously ricky would be ok with the government mandating everybody eats broccili. Could it be we see no problem. People are fat because they eat bad. Well so be it. That is their fault and they need to deal with the consequences. You know it's called personal responsibility.

Just out of curouisty Ricky....where does government interference become too much? in your mind is there such a thing?

The status Quo is to change nothing, go back to letting parents decide how their kids should eat.
I agree with that, I am willing to possibly allow some kids to be singled out and have the parents brought in to discuss the problem with the school officials. If the parents disagree, then the school can report this to the courts. It is most certainly NOT the Principals role to decide what is best when it comes to how a child should eat. What if the principal is a vegan? Then should all kids eat vegan only meals? Hell, what if the kid is a vegan? I see a pretty crappy offering for them in the menu posted. The parents may have very valid concerns that the school lunch is not up to THEIR standards, now you insist the parents must allow their kid to eat a LESS healthy meal? What about the kid who doesn't like fish taco's good lord, who does? Nope, the kid goes without eating under this supposed "better way".

And what about the question about detention?
Why should we single out bad kids? to be fair, ALL kids should be put in detention
Nobody is picked on and everyone is the same, the situation is identical to the lunch situation. Oh, except the school doesn't get extra funds by insisting on detention for all.

and another thought...

The only way to equitably, and effectively enforce his solution is to ban all but allergy excepted students from bagging lunches. Otherwise you have an overbearing principal singling out fat kids, and individually shaming specific parents.You can imagine how this would play out?

What about the kids who do have medical exceptions to this rule? Now you are "individually shaming specific" students, making them different is indeed shaming them, the other kids will pick on them. You want to allow such medical conditions making a kid feel bad even worse?????


...nice, real smart idea

I'm moving to Chicago if this goes into effect. The money I could make slinging my wife's chocolate cake at a $1 a piece would be unbelievable. I'd soon have a bunch of "pushers" working for me.

Yeah, sweet!

Stop Steve!
Have you read Obama's "Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010"?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ol-meals/1

The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, a $4.5 billion measure, provides more free school meals to the pool, and gives the government more power to decide what foods can offered in those meals, as well as in school vending machines and fundraisers during school hours.

Looks like you can't even sell fundraiser chocolate bars (or your wife's cake) during school hours!

Yeah, sweet!

and we may have to ban your use of the word "Sweet"
such alliteration that promotes unhealthy foods may be unwise as well?

Archduke Russell John wrote:Obviously ricky would be ok with the government mandating everybody eats broccoli.

Except that the evidence shows that the government won't mandate the eating of broccoli. The USDA funds and sets the standards. BigAg and the food services industry are going to use their dollars to ensure their profits. Essentially by saying government ought to call the the shots giant corporations are able to guarantee themselves business.

The trend for increasing levels of cafeteria lunches and now breakfasts has coincided with the epidemic rise in childhood obesity. We have seen the centralization of poor nutrition.

Further, what incentive is their to go to the effort to make your kid's lunch if as a median income family the school will do it for you for $0.40 a meal. Unless you are going to send your kid a Tupperware container full of cooked rice I could hardly imagine how you could compete with a $0.40 meal.

GMTom wrote:Stop Steve!
Have you read Obama's "Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010"?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ol-meals/1

The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, a $4.5 billion measure, provides more free school meals to the pool, and gives the government more power to decide what foods can offered in those meals, as well as in school vending machines and fundraisers during school hours.

Looks like you can't even sell fundraiser chocolate bars (or your wife's cake) during school hours!

That's why I'll be recruiting kids as young as 9 to "deal." In Chicago, both backpacks and coats can be used to hide the "illicit" substance. And, guess what? There are no sentencing guidelines for chocolate cake!

Psst! Hey kid, want to make an easy $20?

One bite of the cake--they're hooked.

A reminder of who's the real enemy of our children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GTX-27 ... r_embedded

Aside from the fact that this is all just another big government power grab, I have to wonder whether Ricky has actually even eaten a school lunch.

So this one principal in one Chicago elementary school represents "Another Big Government Power Grab"?
You are bizarre.
I'd say you are all massively over reacting.
And none of you have indicated how you'd suggest the Prinicpal could change things except Tom, who's for singling out fatties and counselling their parents. (By the way, a kid with a food allergy knows he's different. He has a food allergy. )
Does this mean you are happy with obesity?

Incidentally the last school cafeteria food I ate was at the University of Guelph which was fantastic. And at Carleton University which was also pretty tasty. I can't remember eating at a high school cafeteria.

Neal Anderth wrote:A reminder of who's the real enemy of our children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GTX-27 ... r_embedded

This deserves its own forum. The President's actions on school-choice are a disgrace and show what he's really all about--keeping his union cronies happy. If Johnny can't read, write, or do basic math, well, he shouldn't live in DC, LA, etc.

rickyp wrote:And none of you have indicated how you'd suggest the Prinicpal could change things except Tom . . . .

Not true. Exercise has been a consistent theme.

The ultimate question is this: is the government responsible for the well-being of children or are parents?

You seem to think that if some parents fail, ALL children should be forced into remedial programs. I can't wait to hear your ideas for improving literacy: honors students getting after-school tutoring in reading? After all, if some can't read, then ALL must go through remediation.

Ruffhaus[

The principal should make certain that the kids can read and write, add and subtract, and so forth

.

Have you considered that many children have problems learning because they haven't adequate nutrition? Including children who come from middle class families but where the mother throws them a lunch bag that consists of salt and sugar in various pre-packaged processed foods. If this is an impediment to the kids learning isn't he doing his job by seeking a way to overcome the impediment?

I do think you are over reacting because you think one man attempting to improve something at his one school to you represents "big government". I think, rather, its an example of an individual attempting to make positive change where he sees a problem, in his immediate community and for which he has responsibility (see your comment on making certain the kids can read and write)
I believe that at the lowest levels, small communities of people, like the community of people who's children attend one school, can solve important problems little by little.
You guys make all kinds of assumptions in your tirades that aren't proven by facts in evidence. It may well be that the school in question has cafeteria food that is inedible, but that isn't stated is it? And what if the program is overwhelmingly popular with parents and kids?

By the way, its interesting that you would enforce "extra PE" but you won't enforce healthy lunch. What's the difference? Why is one considered government coercion but not the other?
By the way, the University cafés I recently ate at are not for profit arms of the Universities, which are also not for profit and largely supported by tax dollars.