cawacko
Well-known member
This. If the government is going to get involved let's at least make sure it is healthy.
Preschooler's Homemade Lunch Replaced with "Cafeteria Nuggets"...
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
This. If the government is going to get involved let's at least make sure it is healthy.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Yes, you are suffering from reading comprehension issues...
YOUR article states the little girl came home from school with the lunch her mother packed for her, so NOTHING was replaced.
The girl simply chose to eat the chicken nuggets from the school lunch provided IN ADDITION to what she herself brought and packed by her mother.
*sigh*
If you refuse to understand why are you here?
They sent her back with the "inadequate" meal they replaced with the cafeteria lunch consisting of chicken nuggets.
This isn't hard to comprehend, and you'll have to note you are the only idiot pretending that it didn't happen. The others are saying that they went too far replacing the whole meal, etc. but they fully comprehend what the article says.
Read again. Or just go away and admit you just don't have the comprehension level necessary to participate in this discussion.
I teach in a school district that is over 80% free and reduced lunch. That is over 80% of our kids are on the low end of the socio-economic ladder. I am a huge advocate of the free and reduced lunch program because I know for a fact that for a lot of the kids I teach the breakfast and lunch they eat at school are the only meals they'll likely get most of the time. But I also realize there are mandates included in that same program that I am such a fan of that are stupid. This is one of them.
If a parent can afford to prepare their child a lunch we shouldn't be snooping through it to see what they brought, and if we did we shouldn't usurp the desires of the parent when it comes to what they send for their child to eat. Obviously if some kid brought something completely off the wall one might want to take notice but is sounds as if the lunch this kid brought wasn't bad at all. We often pack our boy's lunch and believe me we don't pack veggies for him to eat. Unless we are there telling him, "you can't get up until that (insert any vegetable except green beans or brocolli here) is gone," he isn't going to eat it anyway. While we do this at home, I don't expect a teacher or cafeteria attendant to do it at school. They have more pressing things to take care of.
I can also see this being abuse in some districts as with a lot of government programs, the more you can account for, the more money you get for your program in return. So when a parent sends their kid to school with a lunch, it deducts from the lunch count for that day, thus possibly reducing the amount of money received from the government. So mist schools want to keep that lunch count as high as possible. Fortunately, in our district, we have some folks who approach this with common sense. When our boy was in Headstart (Pre-K or whatever it's called now) and this rule applied, his teachers and the cafeteria personell didn't care that he didn't have a vegetable to go with his turkey sandwich and bag of chips.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Again, the school REPLACED nothing...they simply AUGMENTED the meal her mother sent, which school officials suspected didn't meet required nutritional standards, with a school lunch that met nutritional requirements. The child then CHOSE TO IGNORE the meal her mother sent and instead ate the chicken nuggets from the school lunch.
that said...
Let's hear it for pompous derision...the CORNERSTONE of any Damo response when he's been caught obfuscating and doesn't want to admit he's wrong!
No, no, no....I know that this isn't how it works. I think the article aluded to this as well. If a brought lunch doesn't meet the requirements then it is kept from the kid and they are given a cafeteria tray, the lunch box/bag being returned at the end of the day. The only thing the child in the article chose to eat off of the tray was 3 chicken nuggets. Zap, I know you and Damo like to go back and forth as to what something says and I really don't want to get caught in the middle, but in this case I know from firsthand experience that this is how it [is supposed] to work in Oklahoma, and since it is a federal program, I suppose that it works this way or similarly in NC.
The reason I bracketed [is supposed] in the above is because our teachers show common sense and just supplement what is brought. I am sure there are some who follow the rule strictly.
And Zap, I went back and re-read the article and in your defense it does say, "supplement." I really don't think that is what happened here, from the scope of the article. I also think the mother was more upset that she might have to pay for something she didn't intend to. Either way, it doesn't seem that things were handled well by the school.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
First, just let me take a second to say think you for the courteous response to my post...perhaps Damo and some others here could show a little more courtesy, alas, it's more important to them to humiliate than it is to have a dialogue .
That said...I found this in the article from Damo's OP:
"When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones."
The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
“When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements.”
It is a quibbling little thing, but then again most debates with Damo get bogged down in the little things due to his inability to admit he's wrong.
And again. The only person making this "argument" is the only person with the reading comprehension problems. While you won't go away, you will be dismissed. There is no reason to pay attention to somebody who simply refuses to understand what happened. They took her lunch, gave her a cafeteria meal, and when she was going home they simply returned the "inappropriate" lunch, with a note and a bill.
The child was not offered the opportunity to eat the lunch her mother packed, the only lunch offered to her by the automatons in the school was the one given by the cafeteria.
Now that you fully comprehend what everybody else was able to understand from the article you can either participate with the knowledge or be laughed at. I just couldn't care any less about what somebody thinks if they can't comprehend the chain of events in an article written at an 8th grade level.
Again. The people understand that her meal was taken from her and she was offered only the replacement meal. Those that can comprehend but agree with the law are saying the "law is good but the school misapplied it" when they "replaced her meal" with the cafeteria meal rather than supplementing it.
Which could be true. But I submit that the school wasn't the problem, the law itself is the issue. It is a stupid feel good law based on the idea that the state can better understand the needs of the child and if you do not follow their specific requirements they will step in and parent for you.
It's a stupid law, that the school did it wrong and replaced the whole meal doesn't change that it is a stupid one size fits all law, based on the lowest common denominator, and that it has, and has had, clear unintended consequences.
Now that I've restated the article in more clear language maybe you can understand the difference between what the law says and what actually happened to this child, and maybe, just maybe, you can participate in the conversation without being laughed at.
Right, which is why lunches are supposed to be supplemented. No need to supplement chicken nuggets for a turkey sandwich, but if your lunch is a pack of cupcakes and a soda, the chicken nuggets would make sense.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Then please...show everyone PRECISELY where in the article it says school officials said they "took her lunch" as you have stated.
I have clearly stated rules and regulations that corroborate my statement that school official SUPPLEMENTED her lunch from home with a cafeteria lunch...all you've got is another patented dose of Damo derision that usually gets served up when you don't want to admit you are wrong.
I don't think they "took" her lunch from her.....but thats hardly the point..........
They did "make" this PRESCHOOLER take 3 chicken nuggets that she ate instead and charged the family for this unwanted, unneeded, and unasked for supplement to a perfectly good and wholesome home prepared meal......
ITS NONE OF THE SCHOOLS FUCKING BUSINESS what the parents feel is a perfectly good meal for their children, unless the kid looks malnourished or is sickly and abuse is suspected......its liberals butting into our lives where they don't belong in a free country......
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Right...and if Damo could just once stop being a pompous douche we might be able to get beyond the petty minutiae and find we agree on this.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
That is how I first read it too. Then looked a bit more. Home packed lunches aren't mentioned. Only school or homecare lunches, whether in home or out of home.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
I've been trying with no success to convince Damo that is what the rule says, but he's not listening...as usual.
It is perfectly reasonable to help a child by SUPPLEMENTING his lunch brought from home so it meets nutritional requirements.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You truly are dense. No matter what, if the Government is going to dictate eating a healthy lunch, CHICKEN NUGGETS SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THE LUNCH. They are BAD for you. They are highly processed, dipped in batter and typically deep fried.
That comment is not about 'supplementing' lunches kids bring. It is about the kids who DO purchase the school option being served CRAP.
But I understand, this is a criticism of the government and you are therefore required to defend the program no matter what.
I will also note that I'm sympathetic to people who don't put things in their kid's lunches that they know the kid isn't going to eat just to comply with some damn regulations. Hence my first comment.
Just have reasonable people who know their ass from their elbow dealing with this shit so that the kids that actually need a decent fucking meal get one and every one else isn't fucking bothered.
Just have reasonable people who know their ass from their elbow dealing with this shit so that the kids that actually need a decent fucking meal get one and every one else isn't fucking bothered.
I don't disagree that school lunches aren't really all that healthy. The reason is that Congress doesn't want to piss off the food industry lobbyists. Hell, just this year the Administration tried to change the regs to ensure that pizza didn't count as a fucking vegetable and the Republicans in Congress overrode that change. Not surprisingly, Damo thought that was just fine and dandy.
By the way, it's clear that you don't have any kids.