|
Post by crazy4scraps on Feb 17, 2017 14:41:39 GMT
I didn't see this on the board anywhere yet. I've already emailed my congresswoman about it but I'm pretty sure she wouldn't support it anyway. Lowering the quality of nutrition in school lunches would definitely affect us, my kid eats hot lunch just about every day (definitely NOT free!) and I don't want her to be eating the nutritional equivalent of a freaking Happy Meal. I read in yesterday's local paper that free breakfast in schools for low income kids is also on the chopping block. I just don't understand how any of this can be okay.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 21:31:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 14:48:26 GMT
I just don't understand how any of this can be okay. Agreed. Who the hell thinks lowering nutritional standards is a good idea?
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on Feb 17, 2017 14:55:18 GMT
I didn't see this on the board anywhere yet. I've already emailed my congresswoman about it but I'm pretty sure she wouldn't support it anyway. Lowering the quality of nutrition in school lunches would definitely affect us, my kid eats hot lunch just about every day (definitely NOT free!) and I don't want her to be eating the nutritional equivalent of a freaking Happy Meal. I read in yesterday's local paper that free breakfast in schools for low income kids is also on the chopping block. I just don't understand how any of this can be okay. It is NOT ok. It is terrifying. I was able to provide my kids healthy meals at home and for lunch, but I work in a school where the amount of kids who receive free lunch is at 85%. I know there are kids who probably only have hot meals at school, I know there are kids who only receive nutritional choices at school, I know there are kids who only see fresh fruit and vegetables at school. I hope to God that the idiots that confirmed BDV do not support this bill. I will be contacting my congresswoman as well, but living where I do I don't imagine she supports it either. Education is fundamental. Our public school system is far from perfect on this country, but vouchers, cutting lunch nutrition requirements and free breakfast is not where the focus should be.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,987
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Feb 17, 2017 15:46:27 GMT
Pay parents to homeschool? That's a recipe for disaster.
"Hey Mom and Dad, do you want $6000 (or more) per kid to homeschool? Yes? Okay, here ya go. And no, you don't need to meet any qualification standards to do it--just fill out these forms and we are good."
So the party that doesn't trust parents to feed their kids with food stamps is going to trust them to educate their kids after receiving a blank check?
I know a lot of successful homeschoolers, and they are successful because they are dedicated to it. I've also know parents who homeschooled for "convenience," and that didn't work out so well. I can only guess what will happen to the kids whose parents decide to homeschool for the paycheck.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Feb 17, 2017 16:09:44 GMT
Pay parents to homeschool? That's a recipe for disaster. "Hey Mom and Dad, do you want $6000 (or more) per kid to homeschool? Yes? Okay, here ya go. And no, you don't need to meet any qualification standards to do it--just fill out these forms and we are good." So the party that doesn't trust parents to feed their kids with food stamps is going to trust them to educate their kids after receiving a blank check? I know a lot of successful homeschoolers, and they are successful because they are dedicated to it. I've also know parents who homeschooled for "convenience," and that didn't work out so well. I can only guess what will happen to the kids whose parents decide to homeschool for the paycheck. My friend is a sped teacher at a primarily low income school. She bought one of her students a winter coat because the kid didn't have one, and we live where it gets -20*F (or colder) actual temperature. When the kid came to school two days later without the coat, she said her mom told her she "needed it more" and sent the kid to school in a hooded sweatshirt. In the dead of winter. So yes, sadly there are parents out there who would probably take that money and spend it on who knows what, but definitely not for the benefit of educating their child. I agree that there are a lot of successful homeschoolers, but there are better ways to provide support to those efforts than this.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 17, 2017 16:36:03 GMT
I'm guessing by terming it "No Hungry Kids" it's trying to address some issues with the current nutritional guidelines that were rolled out in 2010 that severely limit the amount of calories that can be in a school lunch. While I'm not advocate for feeding kids junk, there IS an issue with the lunches not providing enough calories for some students - particularly student athletes. This is a discussion on the issue (which is definitely not new) www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/010713p34.shtmlI'm glad we do not need to rely on school lunches - there was a huge issue with crappy food - and I'm glad there was an attempt to provide more fruits and vegetables and less saturated fat. BUT both of my kids are strenuous athletes (and still growing). My son regularly exceeds 600 calories for lunch - particularly on days when he has practice right after school. He is probably easily in the 3,000+ calorie a day group as he's growing 4-6 inches a year. My daughter is more of the 4-5 meals a day, so doesn't eat that much in one sitting, but when you're dancing for 3-4 hours a day, you need fuel. I think it's the issue of one size not fitting all.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Feb 17, 2017 17:11:18 GMT
Darcy Collins I would say high level student athletes are the exception and not the rule and the majority of kids eating school lunch (especially at the elementary level) would not fall into that category. I would be willing to bet there is a bigger problem with childhood obesity than there is with student athletes not getting enough high quality calories. I volunteer in my kid's 1st grade classroom roughly every three weeks, and on the days I volunteer I stay and have lunch with her and her friends in the school cafeteria so I see firsthand what is going on there. I think the biggest challenge with getting kids to eat isn't what is or isn't on their tray, it's the fact that they barely have 15 minutes to sit down and actually eat it once they have it. Our school works in partnership with local health initiatives (Power Up for Kids) to make kids aware of what healthy food choices are because some of them never even see a vegetable at home. School lunch today looks a LOT different than it did when I was a kid, both in terms of what the choices are as well as how the food looks and tastes. I remember being in high school and many kids would routinely choose a pack of French fries and a malt as their meal and I don't know if that would fly today. (My only kid is in elementary and I'm not sure what happens at the high school level.) Our kids here also have an additional mandatory "nutrition break" either in the morning or in the afternoon depending on what time their lunch falls. They are supposed to bring in a non-perishable "healthy snack" daily to eat at that time. Unfortunately many of their best choices are limited because they can't bring in anything with peanuts, tree nuts, etc., so many nut based protein bars are automatically ruled out because they eat the snack in their classroom alongside the kids with allergies.
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on Feb 17, 2017 17:42:01 GMT
I just don't understand how any of this can be okay. Agreed. Who the hell thinks lowering nutritional standards is a good idea? And thinks it worth the time and money to repeal it while our country has other issues! I suppose it's linked to some deregulation, local control stance by the legislature?
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,179
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Feb 17, 2017 18:09:46 GMT
There's another part of that bill that should be a huge concern - that it says it repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. That is the program which is the base for the outgoing NCLB and the new ESSA, both of which are the providers for Title I programs in schools, along with other programs.
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Feb 18, 2017 12:58:12 GMT
That's a terrible idea.
For some, those hot lunches are the only thing close to a healthy meal they get all day.
I am blessed enough to be able to send my kids with a lunch full of healthy foods that I buy, but for some kids, the fruits and veggies they get at school are all they are seeing.
Every time I see bills like this, I think to myself: What is the incentive? Who will make money from this passing?
You bet your heiny that none of the people who would benefit from this bill passing have ever needed their children's nutritional well being to depend on the food they get from school. But how can they not have compassion for the children who do rely on that food?
|
|
maurchclt
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,623
Jul 4, 2014 16:53:27 GMT
|
Post by maurchclt on Feb 18, 2017 14:41:28 GMT
As a retired teacher, this scares the sh!! out of me! Exactly why we did not want her in this job. Vouchers, taking money away from public education, Title I and special ed programs, and nutritional mandates abolished, WOW!!!! Call, email your Senators please.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Feb 18, 2017 15:56:10 GMT
I just don't understand how any of this can be okay. Agreed. Who the hell thinks lowering nutritional standards is a good idea? people whose kids don't go to public school or have precious snowflake children who could never stoop to eating school lunch. (Which by the way cost me about $75 per month since my kid prefers to eat breakfast and lunch at school with his friends) School lunch doesn't have to suck. I like the lunch in my district. Many teachers pay to eat and there are certain days both teachers and kids get excited about.
|
|