and guess what, the kid with the allergy can hide it well, nobody knows he's different. Not so in your case here. The kid who's fat? I'm pretty sure he knows he's fat, I know for damned sure the rest of the class knows he's fat. And further, my suggestion was for the kid who is eating horrible meals from home, his parents be contacted. Nobody in the school need know they had a problem, the allergy problem, now they ALL know.

Kinda big difference there and i was never suggesting all fat kids or their parents be consulted, only those where you know a problem exists with the lunch they pack. My answer is pretty much leave it alone, you will be doing more harm than good.
Consider the fact that most of the food is not liked by the kids, most of the nutritious stuff is thrown out, some parents pack BETTER nutrition than the school offers, what about the many kids who now are not eating anything at all because they don't like it? the list goes on and on, to assume all kids bring bad foods is rather foolish and unfair. To assume the principal knows better is a lark.

And please answer that question about having all kids stay for detention, it really is the same darned thing. If you feel this lunch idea is a good one, then the same logic (or lack of logic) would follow that you would keep all kids for detention. I see no difference.

Lunch:
SOME kids eat poor lunch, bad for their health.
We don't want to single anyone out
it's easier to treat all the same

detention:
SOME kids are fighting, bad for the health of all students
we don't want to single these few bad apples out
It's easier to simply treat all the same

...I see no difference

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?

Most kids and parents are indeed saying the food at this school sucks, much is being thrown away and many are simply not eating lunch at all.
Those are not assumptions it IS stated (over and over), yours is the assumption and your assumption is proven to be wrong when you actually read the stories.
There are quite a few stories with interviews of parents and students, I read several, I don't think your assumptions were looked into in the least, it was quite easy to find the actual answers without assuming anything (and is indeed what several of us have been posting).

The link I already posted proves my point alone. And yes, I read several other interviews with kids and parents but damn, the story linked to was ignored?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011 ... lic-school

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.

Little Village is the school in question, this is not an "assumption" as ricky wants us to believe, it is a FACT

and ricky wants us to believe the program "may well be overwhelmingly popular with parents and kids"
But his assumptions do not meet with FACT

"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!"

again, these are kids in that very school being discussed.

do you read these stories or simply assume everything after reading a cliff notes version of things?

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

Perhaps because we don't think it is something the principal should be involved in?

Well, Tom, I did preface my stance with the proviso that if the cafeterias food was unappetizing the plan was problematic. It is interesting that the program has gone on much longer than the original article I quoted seemed to indicate. 6 years.
An epidemiologist could have done an interesting study of weight levels of students over that time to seem if it had a positive effect...
Meantime, I noticed in the article you quoted, that there is another school, that takes a similar approach. But does police lunches the way you had suggested:

At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain

.

archduke

Perhaps because we don't think it is something the principal should be involved in?

Yeah, I got that. SO far the reason for that attitude seems to be based upon an iea of "parental" persoan" responsibility and "liberty". But doesn't say how that this is suppossed to improve the situation.
Ruffhaus said:

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

So if the external environment is making this difficult should the principal not be involved? If for instance there is bullying affecting many children's lives? Or if the air quality or the noise quality of the school affect the ability of children to learn?
Where do you draw the line between making principals and teachers responsible for the quality of education and the entire educational environment?
What good is having the best teachers and teaching programs in the world if the students don't have the nutrition their brains require to take advantage of that?
And I guess if you want to look at the way the US education system compares to the rest of the world, and bemoan the lack of return for the invested dollars, perhaps its because there isn't a holistic approach to learning ? That you expect silos of responsibility and teachers to say, "Hey, if the kid is too tired and unenergetic to learn ain't my problem".

Teachers don't teach just for the money. They enjoy seeing students succeed. If part of the success requires helping them eat well enough to be able to learn why shouldn't they get involved?

rickyp wrote:Ruffhaus said:

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

So if the external environment is making this difficult should the principal not be involved? If for instance there is bullying affecting many children's lives? Or if the air quality or the noise quality of the school affect the ability of children to learn?
Where do you draw the line between making principals and teachers responsible for the quality of education and the entire educational environment?
What good is having the best teachers and teaching programs in the world if the students don't have the nutrition their brains require to take advantage of that?

Determining a priori that brown bag lunches are the cause of malnutrition and school lunches are the solution is rubbish. What's next? If a child is obese, will the school provide dinner too? How about baths? Is the child getting enough sleep? Watching the right shows? Surfing the Internet safely? Getting enough allowance? Receiving appropriate socialization?

Maybe a school principal should be a 24/7 job? The position would be staffed in shifts. He/she would make all the determinations listed above, for starters. The children would all receive the full benefits of the professional care they would receive. Their nutrition, exercise, mental and physical hygiene, and social settings would all be planned for maximum development and safety.

Hmm, is this school . . . or jail?

I don't recall if you have children. Would you be comfortable with the State raising your child? If not, where is the line? At best, I think forcing ALL kids to eat school lunches is getting pretty close to that line.

At best.

They can't even get something as simple as water figured out.

Part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act signed last year requires that clean water be easily available in schools. But the problem is that while water is available, there's often no way for kids to easily consume it during lunch.

Studies show that drinking water during the school day can help lower the risk of childhood obesity by as much as 30 percent. So what's preventing schools from offering it at lunch?

Money. Not only are disposable cups expensive (at least, when you're talking about the number of cups needed for an entire school district), schools are reimbursed by the government for the milk or orange juice they serve students in the cafeteria, but not for bottled or tap water.

"It's an unfunded mandate," David Binkle, deputy director of Los Angeles school district food services, told CNN. "If the federal government let us offer water as part of a reimbursable meal, then the children, many of them, instead of taking a milk or juice, would take a water."

But if kids start bringing their own water (or filling up water bottles before going to the cafeteria), schools stand to lose money in another way: most schools get a cut of the money kids spend at vending machines. "If students drink free water served at school instead of purchasing competitive beverages that fund extracurricular activities, schools may have to seek alternative fundraising strategies," a report published last month in the journal of Preventing Chronic Disease pointed out. The report, funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, focused on the huge school system in Los Angeles.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 85 percent of middle-school age children do not drink enough water. Kids should drink six to eight 8-ounce glasses of water each day, and teenage boys need as much as 11 servings of water a day.

"Since children spend a large percent of their waking hours at school, they should be consuming at least one-half their total water intake at school," says Dr. Melina Jampolis, CNNHealth's Diet and Fitness Expert.
"Mild dehydration can affect learning as well as mental and physical performance."

No problem Neal, just throw more tax dollars at this problem as well.
Bottled water for all school kids, money doesn't matter.

You missed a quotation mark at the end of rickyp--that's why the quotes are all off. Maybe Ricky will look at this and figure out how to make it work for himself!

I edited the quotes, no idea how the quote was attributed to that person, I see it now but edited the quote portion already (for ease of reading, I did not change any wording ...I happen to agree with it)

One serious question for Ricky,
Do you have kids?
if so, are they in school?

If not, check back here when you do!

.ruff

No I have not considered that at all, because it’s ridiculous. You know why. Because kids typically eat their lunch after 2/3 to 3/4 of the school day has already taken place

I guess thats why some of these progams are for breakfasts? By the way, poor nutrition, that is eating high sugar or fat content can create immediate problems with concentration and cognition. Not just hunger. Its why so many bad business deals are arrived at over lunch.

ruff

Even so, Tom presented evidence that the school lunches largely get thrown in the garbage unconsumed,

Well, his story indicated some was...don't over state. (If the cafe served 400 students and only 20 threw out some food that would be a pretty good performance) And I'll stipulate again that for the program to really work the cafe food would have to be great.

ruff

It’s the state grabbing power and responsibility from the parents

Its one principal Ruff. And if the parents were really upset why, in six years, havn't they organized to force her to change back?They could easily.
I'm guessing because its easier for them and the majority are actually reasonably pleased?

ruff

I completely agree with this concept using recommendation, suggestion, and praise/reinforcement, not with edict, mandates, and regulation

Isn't this whats been going on as the nation has gained? Just wondering? If it isn't working why keep doing the same thing? And again, this is one principal in one community...who apparently has support from most of the parents.
It ain't Big Brother. (Apparently, Thats apple and google if you have their phones)

And Ruff, I mentioned the Universities cafes I was in, because they are a part of what essentially are "socialized education" up here...

Tom,

One serious question for Ricky,
Do you have kids?
if so, are they in school?

[/quote]
I'm old. I have one daughter who's an epidemiologist after 6 years of university. And one son who's a professional athelete. They both ate pretty well growiing up, and the son has also supported himself as a line chef. He now even cooks for me upon ocassion and makes a great Jerk Chicken. .And they both lecture me about MY eating habits.

Mostly I got concerned about nutrition training comeptitive soccer players for years. Girls mostly. I watched the parents who would bring soft drinks and twinkies for their kids to tournaments wonder why their kids physically crashed in the second half of a tournament. Or wonder why their kid had trouble keping up with the physical.The coaches usually got crapped on for poor coaching for this of course...
The best players had great diets generally and by the time they were aged 14 never relied upon parents to back lunches. Their also the ones that went on to play in University.

We tried to get nutritional information (calories, sugar, protein, etc.) on the food served in our kids' school, but were unsuccessful. That information was unavailable. It's interesting to me that the public sector can mandate that private sector companies provide that sort of information, but can also refuse to do so for the food they serve.

RJ

I continue to think an interesting route would be to get a few activist attorneys in a school district to represent all the fat poor kids that eat the free breakfast and lunches and sue the school district for harming the children. You parade expert witnesses to describe for the jury the almost certain medical tragedies that will befall them. Of course you have to make a case for all the current pain and suffering as well, fatty livers, diabetes, pain, humiliation, etc. I think by taking the most vulnerable population and showing how they are harmed precisely because they are most the dependent on school meals could move the whole issue along. If they insist on centralizing then the least we can do is kick them in the nuts till they get it right.

Ray Jay wrote:We tried to get nutritional information (calories, sugar, protein, etc.) on the food served in our kids' school, but were unsuccessful. That information was unavailable. It's interesting to me that the public sector can mandate that private sector companies provide that sort of information, but can also refuse to do so for the food they serve.

RJ

JJ,

Did you try submitting a formal open records request to your school district adminstration office? I am not sure what Massachussett's open records law is like, but oft times that is the track you have to take.