The School Knows Better Than You Do

Goodbye, sweet America. Can't figure out what to feed your own child? Are you addled brained of a parent that you're going to need someone else to decide what you child should and should not eat? Well, if you answered yes to those two questions AND if you have a child and they are currently attending (or going to attend) Little Village Academy in Chicago, then you are in luck! That's right. That's because the Little Village Academy in Chicago has decided that you have no idea how to feed your kid properly and therefore they have banned "...students from bringing lunches from home altogether."

That's right. It doesn't matter if you want to pack your kid's lunch. If your child attends Little Village Academy, you can't. According to the Chicago Tribune, "...students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria." NOT ALLOWED to pack lunches from home. In the land of the free. All right then. How...how...why is this? Well, because the school knows better than you, silly.

The principal, a one Elsa Carmona, explained that "...her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices." By telling folks how to parent. By telling them that they CANNOT choose what their own child eats. By taking away their freedom to raise their child how they see fit. All right then. This is asinine. Oh, and in case you were wondering what sort of meal they will be providing the children with for their own protection, please see the photo below. It is alleged that it is some sort of "an enchilada dish". Behold!

Oh, man. Kid, I feel for ya. Ms. Carmona claims that she created this policy six years ago. The reasoning? She saw students bringing "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for lunch. Oh, no! Flaming hot chips! Soda?! The madness! She goes on to say that "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school." Right. Because parents are completely incapable of packing a nutritious lunch for their children to eat. Those poor dumb, dumb parents. She also says that "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception." Wait. She what?

She would make an exception for kids with allergies or some sort of medical issue? You mean, the school doesn't know how to handle things like that better than the parents do? Why not? They seem to know what's best for every other kid out there when it comes to feeding them. Why can't they execute that same sort of care for the ones that really need some help? If you answered because this is an asinine policy to begin with, please come forward and claim your prize.

And in case you were wondering who pays for all of this, let us go to the part of the article that really aggravates me. It explains that "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." I see. Soooo...let me get this straight. By doing this, someone actually makes money. By taking away the freedom to choose, someone is profiting off of it. Huh. And the money that someone makes comes from where again? The federal government, was it? Yeah, OK. And that money comes from where again? OH. That's right. ME!

How many times do I have to point out to morons that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. This isn't a "free" program. It's paid for by the taxpayers! Federal taxpayers! When did it become everyone else's job to feed someone else's kid?! I didn't sign up for that! I can think of about a hundred different ways that I would like my federal tax dollars to be used and not one of them involves feeding school children in Chicago! (And most of them don't include the many, many ways our tax dollars are already being pissed away, but I digress.)

Fortunately, there are some voices of reason with this issue. A one J. Justin Wilson, who is a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry, said "This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility." Do you think?! Oh, sorry about that. He seems to be on my side. Never mind. I meant, yeah! It's an infringement. (I'm going to have to remember that phrase. Fundamental infringement. It sounds a little more responsible than "moronic" or "asinine".) He also asks the sadly rhetorical question of "Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Hard to say, being as how they've banned lunches from home altogether, but I'd still like to know their answer.

Another voice of reason on this topic seems to come from a one Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach who is an "education policy professor" (whatever that is). She commented on the issue of the cost of requiring students to eat a school lunch at the cost of $2.25 a day. "We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk". That lady is awesome. How cool of a mom is she? I want to know what Star Wars ship. I'm guessing the Millennium Falcon. Her son probably doesn't like crusts, so she cuts them off in a cutesy way. I like her. She's fun, she's reasonable and she's right. $2.25 a day for a school lunch? You can definitely bring a lunch from home for considerably less.

And while not all schools in the Chicago area have implemented this policy that you and I pay for (funny, I don't feel like I live in Chicago), others have come up with their own equally ridiculous policies. Take the Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side. Over there you can bring a lunch to school, but the school "officials" will "...confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.)" Right. That makes perfect sense. Because the kid won't eat it after school. Noooo. If you're not eating it at school, it takes all of the fun out of it! But do you know why they do it? If you ask Principal Rebecca Stinson she'll tell you that "...most parents expect that the school will look out for their children."

If that last quote doesn't horrify you to your bones, then I can't help you here. Sure, I expect schools to "look out" for children when the children are there. But when I think of being "looked out" for, I think of the school keeping the children safe...and not safe from a Cheeto! Next thing you know, they're going to want to tell the kids what to wear, what doctor to go to, etc. And what, exactly, happens on the weekends when the school isn't around to guide these completely soft-headed parents in raising their children? What are they going to do? How will they know what to choose? Where is the school when we need it?! Holy crap. I think I made myself sick typing these last few lines. Goodbye, sweet America. With policies like the ones described here, we are not only doomed, we are screwed. We are so scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

No Soup For You!

Over there at Atlantic City High school in (surprise) Atlantic City, it seems that some of the kids during one of the lunch periods decided to engage in a food fight. According to the Press of Atlantic City, it was "...a cell-phone-coordinated food fight that broke out during a recent lunch period." Cell phone coordinated? Interesting. Well, at least they're getting involved within their own community. That's something. But here's the thing: As a result of said food fight "Cafeteria workers offered students only cheese sandwiches Wednesday and Thursday as punishment". OK. That's an interesting way of handling it, but I can see the point. If they're going to be throwing around stuff like mashed potatoes and mixed fruit, that's going to make a mess. It's going to make a bigger mess than throwing around bread and cheese, that's for sure. So what's the problem? Of course. Some parent is having a complete cow over this.

Meet Bridgitte Reid. Her daughter attends said high school and was present during the lunch period during which said food fight broke out. She says, "It’s a prison meal. They can’t do this.” They can't? Why...why not? I think they can.

According to the article, "Reid was so enraged after her daughter explained what she ate Wednesday, she eventually argued directly with school officials, marched into the cafeteria and snatched one of the cheese sandwiches for evidence of the “crime.” I'm sure this woman is just a peach to have as the parent of a student at that school. Just a peach.

Now, look, I can understand being upset at having to suffer through a group punishment when you weren't actually part of what went on. And Ms. Reid is claiming that her daughter was not part of the cell phone organized food fracas. And I get that. But when things like this happen, don't the ones who get punished along with the ones that were responsible get kind of pissed off at the perpetrators? Isn't that supposed to do something right there? Besides, I can imagine that it would be a little difficult trying to ascertain exactly who participated in a food fight and who did not. Then again, they seemed to know that it was organized via cell phone, so they must have a fairly good idea. Regardless, I don't have a problem with this sort of group consequence.

According to the superintendent of the district, a one Frederick Nickles, "“It’s been the policy of the school board for many years that if there is a food-throwing incident, what occurs is we will supply the basic food requirement. It’s been effective over the years.” Again, that seems reasonable. Sure, it sucks that her daughter happened to be in that group, but as Mr. Nickles says, "It’s unfortunate, but we are more concerned about the general population.” Ah, if only other things, such as learning, were treated in such a manner.

But here's the thing I don't get. Why is Ms. Reid so upset that her daughter was fed a cheese sandwich? I could see if her daughter was paying full price for the school lunch (I almost doubled over with laughter as I typed that, as I don't think that anything other than a subsidized lunch in school these days is even an option) and was expecting something with a bit more, say, substance to it and was handed a cheese sandwich. But due to the craptastic reporting of the story, the article does not delve into whether or not Ms. Reid's daughter was paying for her lunch or not.

The article also does not question Ms. Reid as to why her daughter did not simply bring a lunch to school. I understand not wanting to eat whatever it is that they're serving in the cafeteria. (My high school cafeteria had some awesome grub. We were the first high school in the district to get a milkshake machine. It's hard to complain about a school lunch that consists of a huge piece of pizza and a chocolate shake.) But if you're not going to like it, bring something from home! It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. (And I can bet you that there wouldn't have been any complaining if those plain cheese sandwiches had been grilled.)

But, alas, that thinking was completely lost on Ms. Reid, who asked, "Why should my student be forced to eat this? There’s nothing on this. No mayo, no nothing. It’s disgusting.” Hmm. I'm missing the part in the article where they "forced" your daughter to eat the "disgusting" cheese sandwich. Just because there are no other options to choose from other than nothing does not imply that something is forced upon someone. She doesn't have to eat it. And believe me, not eating one lunch that she does not like is not going to cause any long term health problems, for cryin' out loud. But I'm going to guess from her reaction about her student being "forced" to eat the sandwich that she isn't exactly forking over any cash for her noontime sustenance. Then again, the folks over at WPIX-TV, used the term "forced" in their story and in their headline, once again demonstrating that the media sucks.

People like this amaze me. You know what else amazes me? How Ms. Reid bears a striking resemblance to Urkel.

Sphere: Related Content