Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Parents sending lunch from home are not participating in a government program.
The entire preschool program is a government program. It is essentially a welfare program for disadvantaged children. The linked articles, especially the later ones, explain the school's situation quite well.
The teacher should discuss it with the parent. It is up to the parent to change it if the parent agrees that it needs to be changed. Like it or not the parent should have the final say about what their child eats. It is not the teacher, the principal, and especially not some government food monitor's place to have the final say in what the child should eat.
In general yes, however in THIS instance we are talking a program put in place for a certain group of children, one that is not required to be offered. It is a program that is optional for the school to offer and is open only to the children who meet the criteria. It is not across the board what goes on in school. It applies to preschool aged children only.
If you are a low income family (as in below poverty level), have english as a second language or have an at risk child (for example homeless) then you would be eligible for this program. They have to apply, fill out forms, and be approved. In this process they agree to all the stipulations to be in the program and one of those is about the nutritional guidelines.
So, in THIS instance the parent does not have the final say about what their child is offered. This is something they have agreed to abide by if they are sending in lunch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
The program that offers the food should certainly be required to offer balanced choices. However, the parent is should be permitted to give her child what she sees fit when the food is brought from home. It is a COLOSSAL over reach by the federal government to regulate the food that a child brings from home. It is also a COLOSSAL waste of money to be providing food that a child will not eat and then charging the parent for that food.
If I want my child to drink milk I will send milk. If I send something else then that's what I want my child to have. The mere presence of a USDA program on site at a preschool does not all of a sudden give the USDA authority to tell me what my child should be eating.
Any parent who doesn't want their child to drink milk is free to skip milk....as long as they provide the appropriate amount of another source of dairy within the lunch.
Again, this is for THIS program, not for school in general. Any parent who does not want to send their child with a lunch that meets the nutritional guidelines (and there are so many varying ways to do so, even for those who are vegan) then this is not the program for them.
The teacher should discuss it with the parent. It is up to the parent to change it if the parent agrees that it needs to be changed. Like it or not the parent should have the final say about what their child eats. It is not the teacher, the principal, and especially not some government food monitor's place to have the final say in what the child should eat.
Then the parent, if they do not want to comply with the nutritional guidelines that are mandatory for the funding of this OPTIONAL program, can take the child to a privately operated or traditionally public program.
Easy.
Meanwhile, I am glad programs exist that help alleviate the ridiculous problem of malnutrition that exists for MANY children in low income families.
Then the parent, if they do not want to comply with the nutritional guidelines that are mandatory for the funding of this OPTIONAL program, can take the child to a privately operated or traditionally public program.
Easy.
Meanwhile, I am glad programs exist that help alleviate the ridiculous problem of malnutrition that exists for MANY children in low income families.
I don't have a problem with the existence of programs to help low income families feed their children, but I will continue to have a problem with any governmental program that interferes with the authority of parents to raise their children as they see fit. Being a low income person does not mean that a parent cedes authority to raise their child as they see fit.
I don't see how that can be true. Just because the USDA runs a program in a school that does not mean children not participating in the program are under the jurisdiction of the USDA. The USDA program may be funded by taxpayer dollars but lunch sent in by a parent is not funded by taxpayer dollars.
But - if the USDA inspector or a teacher decides by talking to the child "Don't you want what the other children are having? Don't you like milk? Wouldn't it be better to eat a nice hot school lunch like all of your classmates do?" I have seen children manipulated in this manner, even have seen 'school lunch' kids start asking a child who brings food from home what's wrong with them or their parents! - If you think that doesn't happen or doesn't start as the basis for "What else is wrong at home?" then you are very much mistaken. Not to mention that USDA inspectors can, by reporting what is brought into the school by children who bag their lunches, shut down a lunch program if the students bring 'unacceptable' items into the cafeteria. Cafeteria workers are mandated to keep an eye on what children bring in, and sometimes they can and do even ban certain things like soda or candy in the cafeteria - even if it is brought from home. Shut down the program - shut down the funding.
No. Not true. The school does not have the authority to completely control a child simply because a child is attending a government school.
You might try getting your hands on a public school handbook since your kids are in private school, and actually reading it (most parents whose children are in the schools don't read them!) You might be surprised of what the mutual pact signed between the teachers, the parents, and the students to 'agree to abide by the rules in the handbook' truly consists!
Of course they can ask for an investigation, but at least in that case there is an investigation instead of just a blanket rejection of the parent's authority. In the case of a social services investigation the state will have to prove that a child's entire diet is unhealthy not just that there was a milk missing from a lunch. Children who are neglected by their parents should be investigated by social services. Deciding a child doesn't need milk in their lunch does not constitute neglect and you know it. This case is an EXTREME over reach by the USDA person involved.
ROFL - YOU may know it, and I may know it, but the interpretation of what a government employee sees, hears and thinks about what you and I "know" would surprise you... as well as what they can do about it.
My kids do not attend a government funded school. However, I do not think that parents should quietly cede their parental authority to schools. If parent resist the effort to control their children schools and federal agencies will have to think twice before trying to grab more power from parents.
This is exactly why parents need to make a fuss when things like this happen. The bigger a hassle it is for the schools to control the lives of children, the less likely it is to happen. My kids attend a private school and bring lunch from home almost every day. They do not really like the school lunch and at a private school lunch is expensive ($5).
Most parents don't "make a fuss" because they do what they are told when they are told, so that they or their children don't suffer the consequences. Guess what is written in a child's permanent record when their parent "makes a fuss"? Guess who ultimately suffers?
Cui Bono? Who benefits when everyone falls in line and goes along to get along? Who benefits if kids 'get with the program' of school lunches?
I don't have a problem with the existence of programs to help low income families feed their children, but I will continue to have a problem with any governmental program that interferes with the authority of parents to raise their children as they see fit. Being a low income person does not mean that a parent cedes authority to raise their child as they see fit.
Then go to a different program.
At my school we have specific rules for behavior, even outside of school. We are a school of choice, as is this program. If the parents do not like it they have other options.
Individual people do not have the right to change programs that serve many, just to suit their tastes.
This program serves many children, they get funding to feed many children nutritious meals they might not otherwise receive by setting high standards. No one has the right to demand standards be lowered in a PROGRAM OR SCHOOL OF CHOICE.
At my school we have specific rules for behavior, even outside of school. We are a school of choice, as is this program. If the parents do not like it they have other options.
Individual people do not have the right to change programs that serve many, just to suit their tastes.
This program serves many children, they get funding to feed many children nutritious meals they might not otherwise receive by setting high standards. No one has the right to demand standards be lowered in a PROGRAM OR SCHOOL OF CHOICE.
Can I assume that no religious Jewish children can be in this program since they do not eat meat and mild at the same time? A person does not forfeit their rights simply because they participate in a taxpayer funded program.
Can I assume that no religious Jewish children can be in this program since they do not eat meat and mild at the same time? A person does not forfeit their rights simply because they participate in a taxpayer funded program.
I don't have a problem with the existence of programs to help low income families feed their children, but I will continue to have a problem with any governmental program that interferes with the authority of parents to raise their children as they see fit. Being a low income person does not mean that a parent cedes authority to raise their child as they see fit.
This is where you are mistaken.....in this program any parent who has applied for and been accepted into the program has already 'ceded' their authority in regards to nutrition.
Can I assume that no religious Jewish children can be in this program since they do not eat meat and mild at the same time? A person does not forfeit their rights simply because they participate in a taxpayer funded program.
No, because as I already stated, as long as the meal meets the nutritional guidelines that's what matters. There are all kinds of food items that will meet the protein requirements. Notice it is protein, not meat, requirement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
