Great Moments in Bureaucratic Excess
RAEFORD, NC — "A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious. The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs - including in-home day care centers - to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
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."
199 Comments:
I love that some numb nuts bureaucrat determined chicken nuggets were healthier than a turkey sandwich.
read the article and ask some simple questions about who, what, when and where.
do they "inspect" home lunches in your area?
not where I live...
let me guess.. this has something to do with socialism and Obama right?
Larry,
What are you trying to say, that this story is false or being portrayed in a misleading way?
I'm saying that they don't do this where I live and I'm asking others if they do this where they live.
this sounds like one guy who did not understand his role and did something stupid as opposed to a USDA or school policy.
there is a lack of information on whether or not that is a school policy or not and the article itself says the Principle had no idea what was going on..
if this is school policy or USDA policy - you'll find me just as outraged as others..
but if this is yet another "created issue"...then it should be called out for what it is.
It's a state policy under the North Carolina Division of child Development. The policy is clear: if packed lunches don't contain their required elements, they must be brought to standard. There's really no way to do that but to check them. I'm sure the idiot that actually did this was not following the plan, but you know as well as I do that this brainless wonder is still there and still around people's children.
I'd go ahead and start your outrage.
It may not be exactly where you live, but what, maybe 100 miles away?
I'm checking locally right now but I'm almost certain we do not do this where I live.
Can you IMAGINE someone checking ALL lunches brought to school EVERY DAY to confirm USDA "compliance"?
I do not think the policy applies to lunches brought from home but instead lunches prepared by the school system.
as I asked. is this the policy in your local school system? do you know?
Of course it's not policy here policy here, we have a republican governor (joke).
Don't you live in Virginia? It happened down the road in NC. Re-read the story....it states the policy. Every lunch brought from home has to meet the standards they have set....if not, they'll bring it to standard. Obviously by replacing a healthy lunch with chicken nuggets.
" ..it states the policy. Every lunch brought from home has to meet the standards they have set"
show me that policy not the excerpt from the reporter...
and how is the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)involved in this?
this is most likely a messed up story by a reporter who either misunderstood or had no clue - or if they did -they did not provide the basis for what is claimed.
show me the actual policy that say this and I'll believe it.
WHERE I LIVE has ZERO to do with this by the way.
Larry,
I'm not going to dig around and find every story done on this for you. Google News is quite good. Carpe Diem is not the only place I've heard/read this story.
Where you live was brought up by YOU, Larry...not me. It just so happens that this is not far from you.
I'm actually a little surprised at your disbelief. This story is nothing compared to over Adventures in Bureaucracy...like the 60 year old guy in my neighborhood that went to prison for selling an orchid.
what happens locally in my area is that some kids in need receive free or reduced cost lunches and those lunches are according to USDA standards.
Then we have kids who show up without lunches and try to charge and their account is past due and in that case, the school has to provide a lunch but they provide an alternative lunch that still meets nutritious standards.
the bad part is that there are parents who do not qualify for free or reduced lunches that send their kids to school without lunches and tell their kids to try to charge the lunch - even though they know they have not paid the bill.
so the school and taxpayers is put in bad situation.
In the case of very young children - if they have a lunch but they are still hungry after eating it - the teacher will try to determine for that kid only - if they had an adequate lunch and if they did not..try to get the child enough lunch - and not infrequently out of her/his own pocket.
but as far as I know.. the school does not pay someone to go through every lunch brought from home to determine if it meets USDA standards.
the whole concept boggles the mind.
Many elementary schools have 400-800 kids.... can you imagine paying someone to go around and collect lunches from each kid then sitting down and inspecting them?
what part of "common sense" does not apply here?
I still think that the reporter along with the parent were trying to "create" something..
where is the actual written policy - not what the reporter excerpted out of context?
again.. WHERE I LIVE has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS story and I do not appreciate you continuing to reference location as I notice that many of the louts here choose to pretty much block their profiles.
As I suspected
what I OBJECT TO is the right wing echo chambers willingness with folks like Mark Perry's help to AMP up non-issues in their never-ending effort to demonize govt and regulation.
There are lots of legitimate examples... but taking issues like this and actually promoting it widely as if it were the truth is in my mind - irresponsible an unethical and it undermines the credibility of those who engage in it.
WHERE I LIVE has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS story and I do not appreciate you continuing to reference location
Yet in your very first comment is:
do they "inspect" home lunches in your area?
not where I live...
You brought up where you live, no one else did, and made this story about your area. Now you're irritated that people talk about where you live and point out that the story being referenced may not have happened where you live? Classic.
" You brought up where you live, no one else did, and made this story about your area. Now you're irritated that people talk about where you live and point out that the story being referenced may not have happened where you live? Classic. "
I did not bring up my SPECIFIC area and I did not ask others to bring up their specific area.
I was asking folks to check their own area for the policy - not the geographic location.
If I have to block my profile like the rest of the louts here.. I will do it also but it's EXACTLY this kind of unprincipled and irrelevant dialogue that comes form folks who just cannot behave themselves.
there does not need to be any discussion of geography here - we're talking about a policy.
First, Larry,
If you don't want your location known, change your profile. Something you filled out on the world wide web is not my responsibility to protect.
Secondly, your reading comprehension is either awful, or you only read the headline. The story is still true. Whether or not the girl's lunch was "taken" or not, she went to school with a good lunch, that lunch "needed fixing" according to a teacher, the girl ends up eating chicken nuggets and the mother gets a note. It's in YOUR link...damn...
Considering the Google results have a Washington Post story (and others) before the one you found, I'd say you had to do a decent share of hunting to find something contradictory. Now, what were you saying about propaganda?
and here are the facts:
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/
http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/docs/20120215231055.pdf
leave it to Rush Limbaugh and the right wing echo chamber and willing enablers like Mr. Perry to blow this up out of all proportion as the the reality.
this kind of thing - divides the country - it polarizes people for no good reason .. and it leads to the gridlock we now have in Washington.
We are the reason - we choose to make as many issues as we can - culture war issues...
and why?
what purpose does this serve to do this?
"let me guess.. this has something to do with socialism and Obama right?"...
Well gee larry g what do you think when Michelle 'fat ass' Obama goes around haranging people on what sort of cud they ought to be consuming...
Larry,
Which part of the story did you find to be untrue?
Girls takes lunch. Lunch deemed unsatisfactory. Girl given chicken nuggets. Mom gets note from school.
Are you saying that didn't happen?
Junados make my point for me.
by the way.. who owns the newspaper that "reported" this travesty??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke_Foundation
NOW this whole thing is starting to make complete sense.
a "planted" story designed explicitly to get sucked up by the right wing echo chamber, Rush Limbaugh and like-minded enablers like Carpe Diem.
the shame of this is that 9 times out of 10, CD provides legitimate news and information then it falls back to this kind of offal just to stir things up again and rattle the cages of folks like Juandos.
shame shame Mark Perry.
you must get bored from time to time and can't resist dropping a noise grenade to stir things up.
and then you have folks like Paul who apparently will swallow it hook, line and sinker..
Larry,
John Lock Foundation does not own the Washington Post...the first place I read this story.
Did you even read that silly blog post you linked? The guy blathers for 1,000 paragraphs to dispute minute details of the story that nobody is discussing... not the biggest parts of the story though. Those remained untouched. Talk about flimflam.
You can look for conspiracy all you want. But you have failed to tell me which of the four parts of the story (stated above) are untrue.
Can you say BS Alert?
Yes larry g I'm asking you...
From your ordinary gentlemen link: 'The original story further obscures that in no circumstance was this child – or any child, for that matter – being forced to eat the school-provided lunch, nor was this child -or any other child – deprived of her boxed lunch. Instead, as the second linked story acknowledges, the child was just provided with additional food and given the option to consume that in addition to her boxed lunch'...
This clown is as delusional as you are larry g!
The collection of parasites setting nutrition goals for N. Carolina is in and of itself laughable except its running on extorted tax dollars...
The USDA bit is even worse...
Where do those parasites come off establishing nutritional guidelines for anyone...
No, the story is actually much worse (unless the socialist nanny state hold one's hand is somehow appealing) than first reported and then carried by Limbaugh and others...
Schools in this country have an abysmal track record of merely teaching the basics, maybe they should get that part of their collective act together first before they try the nutrition scam...
Locke owns the paper that did the original story Paul.
here's what is true.
in early elementary school - teachers make sure that young kids have enough to eat.
they will SUPPLEMENT if the child will eat what is offered.
they do NOT go through lunch bags.
they've been doing this for a long time.
it boils down to how you care for kids who may not get enough food because kids who are hungry do not learn well.
this is not something new.
it goes on across the country and it's done solely to kids benefit.
this is NOT a NEW regulation.
it's NOT a Federal regulation.
there are NO FEDERAL or STATE INSPECTORS.
this is pure and simple a trumped up story for the right wing whackos.
'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke_Fo'
What's next scary larry, something from the 'kostards' or maybe mediamoronsmatter?
scary larry whines: "a "planted" story designed explicitly to get sucked up by the right wing echo chamber, Rush Limbaugh and like-minded enablers like Carpe Diem"....
That 'plant' you have a problem with and this so called, 'right wing echo chamber' calling it for what it is, its inane nanny state interference is what it is?
With people like you supporting the neo-commie clown and his fellow travelers is it any wonder we have this humungous problem on our collective hands for generations to come?!?!
I have now talked to an ACTUAL teacher about this issue.
there are NO "inspectors".
There is NO ONE who is going through the bagged lunches and determining if they meet USDA Standards.
Teachers DO THIS in the K-3 grades.
the kids go to the cafeteria.
they open their lunches and proceed to start eating them.
if the teacher thinks the kid does not have enough food.. they will ask if the kid wants more food and if they do -they get it.
NO KID is told to EAT MORE or eat something they don't want.
I'm told this has been going on for MANY YEARS - decades even when REAGAN was POTUS.
this whole thing is total idiocy that is typical of the right wing echo chamber these days.
the folks that believe this are not thinking and not really concerned with the truth.. because it serves their purpose for hating govt... and attacking institutions of govt.
but this divides and polarizes people for absolutely no good reason other than mean-spirited hateful motivations...
you have to examine your own self and your own reasons for accepting something like this as "true".
"neo-commie" perfectly describes the motivations of those who hate govt and will use any premise to attack it.
funny they live in the good old USA, eh?
"they will SUPPLEMENT if the child will eat what is offered"...
Its not the school's job, its not the job of the N.Carolina parasitic nutrition commandos, its not the job of the USDA either, its the jobs of the parents to take care of that detail...
"they will SUPPLEMENT if the child will eat what is offered"...
That has not been definitively proven yet...
"they've been doing this for a long time"...
And that's the excuse to continue to carry on this money wasting scam?
"it boils down to how you care for kids who may not get enough food because kids who are hungry do not learn well"...
Often repeated, never credibly proven...
"this is pure and simple a trumped up story for the right wing whackos"...
No this is liberals caught lying and stealing from the taxpayers again...
Poor Larry,
Funny thing is you're the one who's all worked up over this. The facts remain:Girls takes lunch. Lunch deemed unsatisfactory. Girl given chicken nuggets. Mom gets note from school.
You can argue all you want about whether it was a federal lunch bag inspector or a teacher's aid...it makes no difference.
I suppose I shouldn't even be talking to you. You're so incredibly confused, you're now calling me Paul, Larry! Paul? WTF? You did it twice. (hint: my name is the blue thing above what I write)
nope. this is the right wing echo chamber in full flower.
at worst, ONE TEACHER used less than perfect judgement in one kid's case.
there is no govt policy at issue here no matter how many times the right wing whackos try to make it that.
this is what I said it was in the very first post - it's a trumped up story that is untrue and was done by a reporter who works for a Libertarian employer.
the fact that dozens of right wing internet sites have picked it up - demonstrates what is going on here.
More anti-govt propaganda and disinformation...
the truth does not matter to the right wing these days... as long as they can convince the gullible in the middle...
if you say a lie enough..over and over - it becomes the truth in the minds of many...
sorry Mike.. Paul..whoever you are!
Larry,
Per usual, we're discussing a barn and you're fixated on a slightly bent weathervane.
This has less to do with some silly policy (though, not if you ask Juandos) the point is this is what you get when you rely on government to do, well, anything. It's anecdotal, it's a bit silly, but it is what it is.
Facts that you cannot dispute Girl takes lunch. Lunch deemed unsatisfactory. Girl given chicken nuggets. Mom gets note from school.
How would you feel if you sent a healthy lunch with you 4 year old and some idiot gives her chicken nuggets? Then, to top it off, the same idiot who gave your kid God knows what, squished to resemble a nugget, has the nuts to send you a note telling you that you have no idea how to feed your child.
Now your kid thinks you don't know how to feed her and she's consumed something you didn't approve. Facts, Larry, facts.
Mike - let me ask you if you were a teacher and you had a child that showed up with no lunch and no lunch money or they showed up with a candy bar or a bag of chips.
what would you do?
would you do nothing?
would you think that the policy should be that you do nothing?
do you think there should be a policy?
and how long has this been going on?
did this JUST START with the NC school?
why is this - something that has been fairly standard for years ... all of a sudden NOW an issue?
and you got your facts wrong guy.
the kid was given a SUPPLEMENTAL item NOT a replacement.
remember also - this is pre-school... for at-risk kids...
some pre-schools don't even allow bag lunches.. the kids MUST get the school lunch so they don't have to worry about what the kid brings.
the point here is that you cannot have no policy.. you have to have some kind of guidance for kids who did not bring an adequate lunch and this has been going on for a long time.
Why is it all of a sudden NOW an issue?
the reason I am "worked up" over this is because THIS is the kind of thing that is corroding and destroying the country.
it's not about what we can find to agree on.
EVERY issue is NOW a absolute pro or con issue where people take sides rather than looking for common-sense compromise.
the country is being torn about over this kind of crap.
nope.
"there is no govt policy at issue here no matter how many times the right wing whackos try to make it that"...
Now you're proving yourself to be a liar scary larry...
You should've followed your own links and followed up on what they indicated...
"There are lots of legitimate examples..."
And in each and every case, you can depend on Larry to zig, zag, and try to explain it all away to protect his hero Obama.
".. let me ask you if you were a teacher and you had a child that showed up with no lunch and no lunch money or they showed up with a candy bar or a bag of chips."
Oh the horror! I used to forget my lunch from time to time when I was a kid. I'm still here to point out what an ignoramus you are, Larry.
" Oh the horror! I used to forget my lunch from time to time when I was a kid. I'm still here to point out what an ignoramus you are, Larry. "
now there you go dumbass...
couldn't behave could you.
go dump on yourself.
Perhaps school administrators get kickbacks on lunches served. Or maybe the politicians. Sounds like something out of Chicago.
scary larry has 'nanny state knickers' all in a bunch because he couldn't sell the baloney he was pushing...
Ha, look how Larry gets all worked up about a story he claims is a nontroversey. He can always be counted on to defend to his last breath the system that sends him his government checks every month.
Paul - my man - what can I say?
you said it best... numb nuts..
but you got the association wrong.
"the reason I am "worked up" over this is because THIS is the kind of thing that is corroding and destroying the country."
Uh, no. The corrosion and destruction of our country is coming directly from the Alinskyite in the White House.
"... coming directly from the Alinskyite in the White House"
what is God's name does this have to do with POTUS?
is this how you really think?
no wonder you're such a mess.
Never mind. we're done. you have nothing intelligent to say here...
I see that now.
"what is God's name does this have to do with POTUS?"...
I guess from larry g's point of view its understandable why he can't see the connection...
After all he claims he didn't see the Republicans offering up any budget alternatives even though the ones from Rep. Ryan and Sen. Paul were linked here on this site awhile back...
Sometimes people just miss stuff...
Speaking of bureaucratic excess, check out the mega monster Obama, Geithner, and their fellow travelers have cooked up courtesy of the American Enterprise folks...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry,
You said you were out, but in case you come back, please do me a personal favor. Look at what you wrote in response to me.
You never responded a single point. Instead, you made up your own, "what if a kid had no lunch" nonsense. That is not on the table and has nothing to do with anything (again, THAT'S the point). You do this all the time and that's why nobody takes you seriously....for good reason.
BTW, my facts aren't wrong. You refuse to look in the proper perspective: First, what part of that complete meal needed supplementation? Second, mom gives 4 year old Larry a turkey sandwich and the school freaks out and gives you chicken nuggets, your lunch has been replaced...not only are chicken nuggets more kid tempting, your school inexplicably put them in front of you.
I know that you only come here to argue with the right wing, unfortunately for you many of us aren't right wing. I know this because your arguments are merely argumentative and have no basis in fact, theory, principle, discussion, curiosity, etc. You're the Alan Colmes of Carpe Diem.
"this sounds like one guy who did not understand his role and did something stupid as opposed to a USDA or school policy."
This particular case involves one person who misunderstood a State DHHS policy.
"there is a lack of information on whether or not that is a school policy or not and the article itself says the Principle had no idea what was going on.."
It's pretty clear if you read the article carefully. I've quoted the part you seem to have missed, below, and bolded the important words.
The principal didn't say he didn't know what was going on, he said he didn't know if the parent had been charged for the school meal. You make him sound like an idiot, and while that might be true, the article doesn't indicate that.
"if this is school policy or USDA policy - you'll find me just as outraged as others.."
Well, then start getting your bowels riled up. This is State DHHS policy as indicated, and schools are required to follow the USDA guidelines.
"The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services - requires - all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs - including in-home day care centers - to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home."
Of course, requiring things, and the child eating them are two different matters. As indicated, the child ate 3 chicken nuggets and threw the rest away. THe mother included items she knew her child would eat.
Perhaps parents are the best deciders of what should be in their children's lunches.
The more importamt question is whether you believe the State should tell you what you can put in your child's lunch, and then check it to see that it meets USDA guidelines.
If the State has a legitimate concern about child nutrition, and a right to check what you've packed, then meal checkers must be allowed into your home to check meals your kids eat there also.
"Can you IMAGINE someone checking ALL lunches brought to school EVERY DAY to confirm USDA "compliance"?"
Yes, I can easily imagine that. You are dealing with multiple government bureaucracies, after all. This is what you should expect.
"I do not think the policy applies to lunches brought from home but instead lunches prepared by the school system."
Read the article. It's pretty clear.
"but as far as I know.. the school does not pay someone to go through every lunch brought from home to determine if it meets USDA standards.
the whole concept boggles the mind.
Many elementary schools have 400-800 kids.... can you imagine paying someone to go around and collect lunches from each kid then sitting down and inspecting them?"
Read the article!!
The requirement applies to *pre-schools*.
"what part of "common sense" does not apply here?"
Common sense isn't called for. You should know that.
"show me that policy not the excerpt from the reporter...
and how is the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)involved in this?
show me the actual policy that say this and I'll believe it."
Check it yourself. Why should people do your work for you? You have a reference to USDA and DHHS. Check it out.
Why do you have a problem with applying science-based nutrition standards in the interests of young children??
Sounds like a perfectly acceptable governmental function to me. Do you have a preference for undernurished children and ignorant/negligent parents??
Would your rants and outrage (expressed above) have been the same had the home-packed lunch been a candy bar and a Coke??
" Alan Colmes"?
:-)
right wing?
with folks like Limbaugh and Hannity spitting all over themselves and the paper itself a part of a right wing libertarian group..
do a little goggle search and see which sites picked this up...all the usual hate-mongering right wing suspects.
Mike - you ARE right wing my boy thoroughly right wing.
tell me WHO is "too" far right for you?
give me some names.
I think all economist can at least agree that incentives do matter. In general,who has a great incentive to see that their children eat healthy lunches. What ever exceptions that can be dreamed up can be applied equally to either side, so the question still stands. As a parent to me the answer is obvious
for me... it's a simple thing... what should a teacher do if she see's a small child (4,5,6) years old without enough food and I realize that's a subjective judgement on the teacher's part.
but in a libertarian world - it's none of the teacher's (nor the schools) business and it's purely the responsibility of the parent
I "get" that.
what I don't like is how they make their point by taking a situation like the one is NC and twisting it into an example of "bureaucratic Excess" when, at best, one teacher might have gone too far for one kid...in one circumstance.
but the right wing portrays this as if it were school policy - to inspect all lunches and to insure that even lunches brought from home must meet USDA standards.
can anyone imagine someone going through all bagged lunches every day? think about the logistics of doing that.
this is not true. It's patently false but the right wing knows no boundaries about lying and misrepresenting the truth these days.
Teachers of small children have to act as surrogate parents for the time the kids are in school.
Anyone who does not think this - needs only to think about what happens when a kid needs to go to the bathroom or gets sick or...get's hungry.
For bigger, older kids, yes more autonomy and less teacher ...
but for really young children - the teacher is essentially the parent during school. Kids that age are not able to function independently.
and.. it's ALWAYS been this way
this is not a recent "creation" of the govt or socialists or Obama.
the whole think is just more right wing idiocy.
This is a 50 comment thread with nothing said in it.
Larry, from my (admittedly basic) understanding, the Federal Government set forth lunch-time requirements but it is up to the states to decide how to enforce them. I would not be surprised if this is how North Carolina has chosen to handle it. However, I believe most states just check the meals offered by the school.
But, let's assume that North Carolina doesn't, in fact, enforce the law by inspecting every child's lunch. I believe the general point of this post remains: there mere fact that such a policy exists can lead to situations like this regardless of whether that is the intention of the policy. We do see abuses of policies all the time, either intentionally (corruption) or unintentionally. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences.
This type of bureacratic excess does not surprise me. A friend at work had an incident where he had purchased a lemon tree online. It turned out the lemon tree came from an unlicensed seller of lemon trees. Someone from the USDA drove 3 hours to destroy his lemon tree. Thanks to the USDA, the Tennessee citrus industry was saved!
P.S. I can only imagine the bureacratic response it he had tried to sell lemonade in a unlicensed stand from his unlicensed tree.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I went to elementary school while Reagan was president. A classmate of mine brought in a Jolt Cola for lunch. Its tagline, if you remember, was "All the Sugar, Twice the Caffeine." The lunch monitor gave the child milk. So its not overreaching of the Obama, its more likely its concerned adults looking out for the well fare of the children under their care at that moment.
Despite what Mike says, the child was not forced to take chicken nuggets. In the process of getting the milk to supplement her bagged lunch, she took the full school lunch which happened to also contain chicken nuggets. I'm sure a note went home to inform the parent of what happened (which it should). But a note is not an inditement of the parent, it's informative. The parent was not charged for the additional food.
Blow this out of proportion if you wish, but there's nothing here but folks looking out for kids... its called a society.
ed r says: "Sounds like a perfectly acceptable governmental function to me. Do you have a preference for undernurished children and ignorant/negligent parents?"...
What sort of government is that?
What makes you think the government knows anymore about food nutrition than anyone else?
Where do you people come up with these 'nanny state' ideas in the first place?
School? Bad parenting? Saw it on the television?
broll the american says: "The lunch monitor gave the child milk. So its not overreaching of the Obama, its more likely its concerned adults looking out for the well fare of the children under their care at that moment"...
What?!?! Under their care?!?!
Gee! Its a school not a collection of 'parasitic pseudo parents' screwing around and interfering in what at one time was supposedly parental responsibility...
I love it when liberals throw out the name Reagan as if he were actually a real conservative or something...
@ juandos - Yes "under their care." While a child (and we are talking PRE-SCHOOL in this particular case) is in school, like it or not, they are under the care of the faculty and staff of the school. That's a fact that cannot be disputed.
What would you have as an alternative? Open the doors and let the children roam around with no guidance or supervision and hope they open a book along the way? This is not Lord of the Flies.
While a child (and we are talking PRE-SCHOOL in this particular case) is in school, like it or not, they are under the care of the faculty and staff of the school. That's a fact that cannot be disputed.
I dispute this fact. Teachers are not meant to be baby sitters or act as lieutenant parents. They are meant to teach. If a school official feels a child is not being taken care of, they should talk to the parent, not replace them.
"can anyone imagine someone going through all bagged lunches every day? think about the logistics of doing that"...
You talk as if that sort of wasted activity doesn't happen everyday...
Can you say, 'food stamps'?
Can you say, 'subsidized housing'?
broll rolls on: "What would you have as an alternative? Open the doors and let the children roam around with no guidance or supervision and hope they open a book along the way? This is not Lord of the Flies"...
Hmmm, I see what the problem is, an attempt to divert deportmental responsibility away from the parents and have the government (local in this case it seems) take over...
Lord of the Flies indeed...
That is testament to the lack of parental responsibility...
@Jon Murphy - Hyperbole much? Who said the parents were being "replaced?" A note was sent home, so that qualifies for the school speaking to the parent about the issue. The child was GIVEN MILK, I don't see the reason for all the outrage.
@ juandos - This is not an attempt to take parental responsibility away from the parents. Rather this is an attempt to make up for lack of responsibility. I can't speak to this particular parent in this issue as none of us know the details of her situation, but there are clearly many cases were parents don't know how to put together a reasonable nutritious lunch, do care to or can't afford to. In those cases the school steps in for the all being of the child and provides nutritious options. In this case the child was GIVEN MILK to supplement the lunch. This is not the unravelling of the Constitution here.
@Jon Murphy -
I dispute this fact. Teachers are not meant to be baby sitters or act as lieutenant parents. They are meant to teach.
Again, this is pre-school. Have you ever been to a pre-school class? There's not a lot a teaching going on. It very much is glorified babe sitting.
I think the big picture that was missed here is why the state provided the pre-K classes to begin with. A very good analysis in TN shows that pre-K has no long term educational benefits (only short term). By 4th and 5th grade, those who attended pre-K are scoring LOWER than those who didn't. Talk about wasted money for a bureacratic excess:
SOURCE
Larry would rather name-call than discuss facts. Larry, the sources you site do not dispute the facts.
Fact #1. A parent sent a child to school with a home made lunch.
Fact #2. A representative of the state bureaucracy (a teacher in this case), overruled the parent's choice of food for her child.
Fact #3. A representative of the bureaucracy gave the child an alternative meal that the bureaucrat believed was in the best interest of the child.
Larry, I have not asked for, nor do I want the help of the nanny state in raising my children. If you are happy with the state co-parenting, that is your right. Personally I find it outrageous.
@Junkyard - State provided Pre-K is not meant to provide a jumpstart on education. It is day-care for working families –particularly single parent or low-income families who can't afford to have 1 parent stay home to watch the child. So while your stat about children scoring lower by 4th or 5th grade may technically be accurate, it fails to encompass the reasons behind it. A Pre-K education itself doesn't cause these kids to fall behind, but economic and household factors come in play.
Broll the American said: "State provided Pre-K is not meant to provide a jumpstart on education. It is day-care for working families –particularly single parent or low-income families who can't afford to have 1 parent stay home to watch the child."
Short version: Pre-K is free day care.
@Richmond
Fact #2 isn't a fact as you state it. The parent's lunch wasn't "overruled" it was supplemented with the addition of milk. The child, misunderstanding what was going on, did what a child does... when asked to get on line to get the milk, the child followed along with all the other kids who took the entire tray of food being offered including the nuggets and the milk. Nobody had an issue with the turkey sandwich.
And as to the point of Pre-K is free day care, I was not trying to obfuscate that fact. That was pretty clear in my post, not sure it needed your edification. What anyone thinks of that policy is another matter and a valid debate.
"State provided Pre-K is not meant to provide a jumpstart on education." - Broll
Broll, the justification for providing Pre-K was to be a jumpstart on education. That was precisely the selling point.
Despite statistical evidence that it absolutely does not help, like most bureaucracies, we just can't get rid of it. Now it is free daycare for parent.
" Pre-K education itself doesn't cause these kids to fall behind, but economic and household factors come in play." - Broll
Broll, If you open the report, you will notice that TN did a good job controlling for this. They broke the research into four groups: those who receive free and reduced lunch w/Pre-K, those who receive free and reduced lunch w/o pre-K, those who don't receive free and reduced lunch w/o Pre-K, and those who don't receive free and reduced lunch with Pre-K.
In other words, they took into account socio-economic factors.
@Richmond
Fact #2 isn't a fact as you state it. The parent's lunch wasn't "overruled" it was supplemented with the addition of milk. The child, misunderstanding what was going on, did what a child does... when asked to get on line to get the milk, the child followed along with all the other kids who took the entire tray of food being offered including the nuggets and the milk. Nobody had an issue with the turkey sandwich.
If the teacher "supplemented" the lunch, they in fact, overrode the parent's wishes. Isn't that abundantly clear?
@ MikeK - If you get a free hat with the purchase of a bowl of soup, has your wish to buy a bowl of soup been overridden? The presence of the hat does not negate the soup. You still get the soup!
The child still had her original lunch, but now there's a carton of milk next to it. She wasn't even forced to drink it, it was GIVEN to her.
broll says: "Rather this is an attempt to make up for lack of responsibility"...
and: "but there are clearly many cases were parents don't know how to put together a reasonable nutritious lunch, do care to or can't afford to"...
O.K. broll if that's where you're coming from but I can't figure out why its government's job to interfer and why other people should have to pay for some kid's meals since that kid isn't their responsibility...
And where are the Democraps who kept using "Reagan-ketchup" as a talking, or rather, ranting point/
@juandos - It's called living within a society. Our collective society has formed a government to facility that our common goals are met. That's what gives the government authority to "interfere."
The Libertarian ideal of a "free society" is not a society at all but rather an every man for himself, eat or be eaten environment.
To each his own, I guess. I can spare the $0.0000001 share of that kid's milk for the day... but that's me.
Broll,
You and Larry are in the same boat.
Have you ever been around a 4 year old? What part of turkey sandwich, banana and juice needed to be supplemented with chicken nuggets (or even a free hat)?
You (as teacher/authority) give a kid chicken nuggets instead of a mama sandwich, which do you think the kid will eat? Now mother has had her wishes interrupted unnecessarily and, to add insult, she gets a note telling her that she's a piece of crap. I really don't understand how you guys can't grasp this.
Make no mistake (no matter how Larry characterizes me), I don't think this is a huge deal. I think it's anecdotal nonsense that's unlikely to happen again, but there is no excuse for it and it's just one more in a long series of big brother idiocy.
Broll: "@Junkyard - State provided Pre-K is not meant to provide a jumpstart on education."
You might consider reading Junkyard's source, :
"Assessing the Impact of Tennessee’s Pre-Kindergarten Program: Final Report May 31, 2011"
In particular, the executive summary, where, after a lengthy explanation that any advantage is lost by third grade, you will find the following:
"Despite the limitations of this study, however, the overall conclusions to be drawn from this series of reports and the cumulative analyses presented in this final report have been consistent: students who participate in Pre-K reliably show better outcomes on Kindergarten assessments than students who do not participate in the Pre-K program. These results provide evidence that the objective of Tennessee’s Pre-K program – school readiness – is being met."
The justification for spending taxpayer money on these programs has been that it it improves later student performance.
" It is day-care for working families –particularly single parent or low-income families who can't afford to have 1 parent stay home to watch the child."
As free daycare for low income parents, these programs might get less public support.
@Mike - Yes, Larry seems like a reasonable person. Thanks for putting me in the boat.
I don't know how you keep missing the point that this was NEVER ABOUT CHICKEN NUGGETS! The girl was told to go grab some milk from the line and instead she took the whole tray (which along with Milk included chicken nuggets). Why are you getting hung up on such an obvious non-issue?
broll-
you keep repeating the point that the child was just required to get milk, but you have not substantiated it, if if you have, i did not see it.
where are you getting that information?
it seems contrary to every news story i have seen on this issue.
further, what is it you think that would excuse?
why is it OK to make her drink milk instead of juice?
her lunch already had a serving or dairy (cheese).
i agree absolutely that this issue has been blown WAY past its proportion, but there is a serious issue underneath:
who decides what's good for your kids, you or the state?
must an indian family of vegetarians serve their child meat as per the guidlines?
this guideline seems like overreach to me.
Broll: "The child was GIVEN MILK, I don't see the reason for all the outrage."
No, I don't suppose you would. If you believe, as your comments seem to indicate, that the state knows better than you do what your children should eat for lunch, and should interfere with your previous choices, then you wouldn't find anything to be upset about.
It appears that the child's lunch was inspected by an outside agency that provides "star ratings" to schools, as part of their inspection process.
We can't ever know all the details, but the child ended up with a school provided lunch instead of the one her mother had packed, from which she ate 3 chicken nuggets, and nothing from the lunch she brought from home.
We might safely assume that the preschool child was acting under the direction of adults, and didn't decide on her own to order a school lunch after being informed that the one her mother had packed for her was inadequate.
Broll: "Nobody had an issue with the turkey sandwich."
If no one had an issue with the turkey - and cheese - sandwich, how did the subject of milk ever come up?
Broll,
"Thanks for putting me in the boat."
You guys deserve each other. You can look at the hole in the bottom of said boat and pretend it's a state-provided fish window.
You should read the story before you comment on it (Washington Post has several quotes from the school as to what happened). Or is it that your reading comprehension is on par with Larry?
If you want the state to supersede for your kid, that would probably be a good thing for all involved.
Broll: "The child still had her original lunch, but now there's a carton of milk next to it. She wasn't even forced to drink it, it was GIVEN to her."
You are guessing. I your picture is correct, and that's all there was to it, how then do you explain the chicken nuggets, and why nothing was eaten from her sack lunch?
@ Ron H -
"If you believe, as your comments seem to indicate, that the state knows better than you do what your children should eat for lunch, and should interfere with your previous choices, then you wouldn't find anything to be upset about."
I don't believe the state knows better, but I do also respect the opinions of those in whom I trust the care of my children. While they're in school, if a teacher or aide sees something that they feel isn't right, I expect them to act on it. Not because they're a mindless cog in some overreaching socialist bureaucracy, but rather they're a trained and caring adult, who is in all likelihood a neighbor and reasonable person. That's been my experience with schools. The schools are not full of SS agents.
"the child ended up with a school provided lunch instead of the one her mother had packed, from which she ate 3 chicken nuggets, and nothing from the lunch she brought from home. "
Yes and the mountains crumbled and the sun went black. Its a true travesty and a real tent pole moment in human history.
Ron H - "how then do you explain the chicken nuggets" ... Jesus I think that I have explained where the chicken nuggets came from a half dozen times already! You ever see a 4-yr old eat? If she nibbled on a few nuggets, of course she didn't eat her sandwich.
The fact that she misinterpreted and took the nuggets along with the milk, and then filled up on the nuggets is regrettable for sure. She would have been better off eating her own sandwich. Its called a misunderstanding... those happen in life. Not everything that happens is a reason to march in the streets.
"Broll: "The child still had her original lunch, but now there's a carton of milk next to it. She wasn't even forced to drink it, it was GIVEN to her."
not according to the washington post.
"The girl’s teacher should have handed the child a carton of milk to round out the turkey-and-cheese sandwich and banana she brought from home. Instead, the teacher erred by telling the tyke to get a cafeteria lunch, Barnes said."
barnes is the school superintendent.
one might expect him to be familiar with that facts.
looks like you have been telling porkie pies about this "just milk" thing broll.
source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nc-school-teachers-mistake-at-school-lunch-led-to-upset-calls-of-government-overreach/2012/02/16/gIQAof8NIR_story.html
i think this is quite a balanced story and looks to have the facts straight from the horse's mouth.
i am left puzzled about one thing though:
if the FDA has no policy or regulation for bag lunches, then why was the teacher supposed to give the child milk? (particularly id she already had cheese).
where did that rule/policy come from?
Morganovich,
"where did that rule/policy come from?"
The way I understand it, it's a state program...a division of NC's HHS.
Mike: ""where did that rule/policy come from?"
The way I understand it, it's a state program...a division of NC's HHS."
Yes. The state agency requires preschools like this one to follow USDA guidelines. The USDA isn't involved.
"but rather they're a trained and caring adult, who is in all likelihood a neighbor and reasonable person"
OMG...I can't stop laughing at this. The only guy who's had nothing but intelligent teachers and great neighbors....this is the same mindset that wants huge government, but then complains when the other party gets hold of it.
Hey, Broll. I'll break this down. What if one of us "radical right-wing idiots" was in charge of your kid at school...still defer?
@Mike - I've been fortunate enough not to come across too many like you, I suppose. I don't "defer" to others on decisions regarding my children, but when I'm not there someone needs to be in charge. My experience has shown my that the vast majority of their teachers and aides are fellow well intentioned parents, citizens and decent human beings. Call me lucky.
They may make mistakes or they my even do something differently than the way I would have preferred. I'm more than capable of hashing the situation out on a case by case basis rather than just negating the potential of any and all things government can do. I'm not in favor or big government, but some government is necessary and contrary to the temperature in this room, it can do some things well.
morganovich: "where did that rule/policy come from?"
The original Carolina Journal article referenced by Prof Perry explains:
"The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines."
This appears to be a state agency.
This comment has been removed by the author.
broll-
wait, are you claiming education is something our government does well?
if so, compared to what?
"Our collective society..."...
I see the problem...
We are NOT a collective broll, we are individual citizens...
Broll,
I never said otherwise. But this is an example (albeit, a fairly harmless one) of pure idiocy....so if our level of stepping in to control our own lives is a tad lower than yours, that makes us wrong-headed?
@ juandos - Your use of the term "citizens" by definition implies one is the member of a society or state. So you make no sense. Its like saying Eli Manning isn't an NFL Football player, he's a NY Giant. You really can't be one without the other.
The rules that apply to the NY Giants are the same rules for every NFL player. No additional controlling powers, no advantages.
@Mike - C'mon man, now you're just trolling.
That's like someone saying apples to apples and then the next person objecting by saying "are we talking Empire or Macintosh apples?" You know what the meaning of my analogy meant.
But, let's play your game... rules are not the same for all NFL players as Quarterbacks and kickers have extra rules in place over them to protect them beyond what the other positions have. Of course Juandos may try to argue that Eli isn't a quarterback.
Nah, I'm not trolling. I'm just explaining why Juandos feels that way.
I can't make a black man stand on the side of the road in the rain because he's driving a nice car. Police do. I can't fail you and screw up your GPA because I disagree with/don't like you. Teachers do. I can't set rules for you and your business to line my own pockets. Politicians do.
To some, the line between citizen and government is wide.
@MikeK, Broll, Larry and all the rest of you Left wing trolls:
Call it what you want (supplementing, augmenting, replacing). What it really is is meddling, pure and simple.
Let me make it simple for you to understand because complex topics confuse you.
I am speaking for myself when I say definitively: "Keep your G.D. hands off my kids' lunch." If I want to give him a PBJ and apple juice, it's none of your business. He is MY child. Next you will be coming into my house and inspecting the meals I put on my table at home, and what time I put him to bed, and what types of television shows I allow him to watch. That is the logical extension of the type of creeping Nanny-Statism you promote. Contrary to what your Leftist hero, Hillary, says, it DOES NOT take a village to raise a child.
I know I speak for millions of my fellow Americans when I tell you that I am sick and tired of you Statist busybodies trying to run other people's lives. Mind your own business.
Is that clear enough for you?
@Mike -
"I can't make a black man stand on the side of the road in the rain because he's driving a nice car. Police do. I can't fail you and screw up your GPA because I disagree with/don't like you. Teachers do. I can't set rules for you and your business to line my own pockets. Politicians do."
These are not policies of the state, but rather the actions of a small group of individuals within the system. You could find such human behavior in all walks of life.
There are good people and bad people all over and government and private institutions have them both in equal mix. Through the course of our collective human development the preference has always been to have some form of government/law/order to protect ourselves from those bad apples who would have a greater opportunity to abuse us without this structure.
@Richmond - I'll make it easy on you. Stop reading here.
"Your use of the term "citizens" by definition implies one is the member of a society or state"...
broll are you running away from the real world meaning of 'collective'?
Citizens are indeed members of society but that doesn't give a few citizens/members of said society a right to dictate to the others either individually or en masse...
Are you telling me that some citizens/members of society have some sort of unearned hierarchical status over their fellow citizens/members?
I'm not trying to be combative here broll but know where you're coming from might answer a few of my other questions...
Broll,
That's exactly what all the fuss is about. You just have a higher threshold for bad apples...and that's fine. We don't and that should be fine too.
"These are not policies of the state, but rather the actions of a small group of individuals within the system."
The reality is: watch them circle the wagons when one steps way out of bounds. Try to fight them and see how far you get.
If these individuals are going to have the ability to run over us, they should be held to a much higher standard, not lower...if your meddling might have the slightest chance of interfering with an individual, it should be avoided. You may not agree, but this is a valid point of view.
there are kids who come to school in the dead of winter without a coat.
there are kids who come to school and need important meds and mom forgot them.
there are kids who show up without a lunch and without money for lunch because mom dropped her off at grandmas and grandma had no idea.
the question is do you want the schools to ignore the fact that it's 20 degrees outside and a five year old does not have a winter jacket... ???
if Johnny is having seizure because he's 48 hours past his meds...what exactly is the responsibility of the school and his teacher?
I can go on but those who think they are the perfect parents are...more times than you think - NOT.
the biggest blowhards are the ones most likely to send a kid to school wearing the same clothes 3 days in a row and they threw up two days ago.
if you've never been in an elementary school you have no idea the range of issues that have to be dealt with.
a kid who shows up with no lunch and a candy bar and mom/dad are not around and grandma is in a walker.. what do you do?
ya'll are living in a dream world if you think every kid is well taken care of and/or it's not the business of the schools to do SOMETHING rather than NOTHING.
and the most important thing here is that teachers making sure that kids have ENOUGH to eat - has been going on for decades.
It's NOT a NEW thing.
the facts in this case were basically lies because there was an implication that it was a new/recent school policy to have someone look at home-brought school lunches... when the facts are that it's not the truth at all and that this is about a specific incident involving poor judgement by a specific teacher.
and the right wingers have done what they have been doing in recent years.. which basically is misrepresent the fact to make something look like something it is not - as an anti-govt, anti-Obama strategy...
... with absolutely no proposed alternative/better/more correct policy ... just condemnation and spiteful hate.
it's not an agenda to move forward on.
it's basically political vandalism much like adolescents breaking out car windows.
Larry,
"there are kids who come to school in the dead of winter without a coat."
Once again (as always) you are way off topic. This is not what is being discussed. This has nothing to do with naked, starving children. This is UNNECESSARY state meddling.
Take a note from Broll. I don't agree with him, but he's responsive, answers question asked and stays pretty well within the bounds of the topic.
Oh, GOD! I missed this:
"and the right wingers have done what they have been doing in recent years.. which basically is misrepresent the fact to make something look like something it is not"
Holy crap, Larry. I'm dying over here. We're talking about state meddling where it's not needed and you're talking about naked, starving kids having seizures! You have done absolutely nothing but try to make this something it's not. This is way too hilarious.
" Once again (as always) you are way off topic. This is not what is being discussed. This has nothing to do with naked, starving children"
you are wrong Mike.
you ignored the candy bar lunch.
my point is solid and true.
there are kids who do not get good care from the parents - all the time - and if you think it's only the "bad' parents, you are wrong again.
1/2 of marriages fail and the kids in these marriages end up in less than wonderful situations and it happens ALL THE TIME in virtually EVERY school.
you're living in a dream world if you think it does not happen.
and yet you have no answers.. only ridicule and spite and NO SOLUTIONS.
this defines the right wing and folks like you.
you are out of touch and don't know it ..and don't care.
" Holy crap, Larry. I'm dying over here. We're talking about state meddling where it's not needed and you're talking about naked, starving kids having seizures! You have done absolutely nothing but try to make this something it's not. This is way too hilarious. "
hey I asked you WHO was to YOUR RIGHT in politics.
did you answer that question or do you admit you are a full blown right winger?
larry g's Parade of the dancing Strawmen...
"the question is do you want the schools to ignore the fact that it's 20 degrees outside and a five year old does not have a winter jacket... ???"...
Yes...
"if Johnny is having seizure because he's 48 hours past his meds...what exactly is the responsibility of the school and his teacher?"...
Sell tickets to others for the entertainment value and then the proceeds can be used to buy some other brat a coat...
"the biggest blowhards are the ones most likely to send a kid to school wearing the same clothes 3 days in a row and they threw up two days ago"...
You see?!?! Not all lunches have to be in brown bags or on cafeteria trays...
"a kid who shows up with no lunch and a candy bar and mom/dad are not around and grandma is in a walker.. what do you do?"...
Three legged sack race during recess?
Sell tickets for entertainment value, recycle granny's aluminum for cash after the race and then go down to the bar for a couple of cold ones off the money you just made...
Voila! Problems solved for that day...
Larry,
How could I have possibly forgotten to answer your question with billions of names. You're probably to the right of me on many topics, but black and white, up and down Larry couldn't even imagine such a thing let alone understand it.
Juanods we know what you think but you are to the right of Attila the Hun...
most of the world is to your LEFT.
99% of the world is limp wrist liberals in your world, right?
" ow could I have possibly forgotten to answer your question with billions of names."
name a few.
are you to the LEFT of Limbaugh?
ha ha ha
how about DeMint or Paul?
what is the level of your Conservatism?
Again, way off topic, Larry. There is a reason that some questions aren't answered. If we're talking about taxes and I ask you to name all your favorite musicians...bad example, you'd probably answer that.
I just know that I'm way to the left of my conservative friends on issues like drug legalization, gay marriage...and most don't understand my atheism. Just a few things that come to mind.
"99% of the world is limp wrist liberals in your world, right?"...
Well larry g in modern America there sure does seem to be an excessive supply of bed wetting thumb suckers who's collective grip on reality is somewhat less than nil...
I got to tell you though larry g your 'little johnny' list made me want to offer the kid one of my pistols so he could eat it and just be done with his miserable existence...
So yeah, I feel compassion...:-)
" I just know that I'm way to the left of my conservative friends on issues like drug legalization, gay marriage...and most don't understand my atheism. Just a few things that come to mind. "
Rush Limbaugh?
Juandos... you're a HOOT!
a thoroughly miserable one but a HOOT!
and you're way more honest than Mr. Paul here about your politics.
Drone Larry,
Not honest about my politics?
Aw, sweetie, I didn't expect you to understand someone who thinks for themselves. Alas, there isn't a political machine to drum up marching orders for you in my belief system, so I guess you can't join :(
" Aw, sweetie, I didn't expect you to understand someone who thinks for themselves"
but Paul.. you fully admit you hate Obama and you hate school systems where teachers look at lunches so we do know that you have a place in the political world but apparently you don't want to say....
so do you or do you not align in general with Limbaugh?
how hard is that to answer?
most folks would say that Limbaugh certainly thinks for himself but then again so does Obama...
so... does thinking for yourself really say as much about your politics as your vehement hatred of Obama or your love of Limbaugh?
:-)
just between us sweetie!
you know ..when Limbaugh gets on board with an issue and you are also on board with the same issue.. that kinda of says where you align..right?
Broll: "My experience has shown my that the vast majority of their teachers and aides are fellow well intentioned parents, citizens and decent human beings. Call me lucky.
They may make mistakes or they my even do something differently than the way I would have preferred. I'm more than capable of hashing the situation out on a case by case basis rather than just negating the potential of any and all things government can do."
I think most would agree with that, and It doesn't appear anyone is arguing against dealing with situations as they arise.
The details aren't terribly important, and the incident is certainly blown out of proportion, but there's an underlying issue of great importance here, that you seem to be unconcerned about, and that is, whether the state should be able to override your choices of what to feed your children for lunch. As I wrote earlier, if the most important issue is child nutrition, why should government authority be limited to just school? Why not in your home as well?
"I'm not in favor or big government..."
I guess your definition of "big" isn't the same as mine.
" whether the state should be able to override your choices of what to feed your children for lunch."
I actually AGREE with this.
but the problem is that you have parents who are not taking proper care of their kids and the dilemma is do you essentially abandon the cause of the kid because their parents are AWOL?
Kids DO come to school with a bag of chips for lunch - 6 year olds do.
it's a fact. believe it guy.
what is the role of the teacher when this happens?
should the teacher make it their business to be AWARE of this when it does happen and to do something about it?
because that IS THE BASIS of their involvement.
In this particular case - a teacher did not understand the boundary.. as opposed to it being the policy of the school.
and this is not something "new".
this has been the standard for many years.
so WHY is this an ISSUE - RIght NOW?
"a thoroughly miserable one but a HOOT"...
Well larry g if I can make a liberal miserable then life is good...
If I can urge a liberal to jump in front of a speeding train and the liberal actually follows through then life is great...
Just saying is that this country needs more liberals like Custer needed more indians...
Larry,
I don't expect you to understand this because you aren't an independent thinker, but the fact that you don't align yourself with anything Rush believes says more about your shallow thought process than someone who would agree with him on some things.
"if Johnny is having seizure because he's 48 hours past his meds...what exactly is the responsibility of the school and his teacher?"
Unless you have authorized them in writing to give him his meds, they won't. Avoiding liability being more important than Johhny's health. In fact, they won't give him a Tylenol. Perhaps they will call 911.
"the biggest blowhards are the ones most likely to send a kid to school wearing the same clothes 3 days in a row and they threw up two days ago."
This is just something you pulled from your ass, but in any case, how is the child harmed by dirty clothes? Is it perhaps your sense of propriety that's offended?
" this country needs more liberals like Custer needed more indians."
actually I agree.
but I think the same about right wing also.
" you aren't an independent thinker, but the fact that you don't align yourself with anything Rush believes says more about your shallow thought process than someone who would agree with him on some things. "
ha ha ha.. evade evade evade...
Limbaugh is an idiot.
what say you?
you want me to name PRINCIPLED Conservatives ? you tell me who you say they are and I'll weigh in.
otherwise we know you're doing that old feather dance.
Still playing at producing the strawmen larry g says: "Kids DO come to school with a bag of chips for lunch - 6 year olds do.
it's a fact. believe it guy"...
So what? Who cares?
"what is the role of the teacher when this happens?"...
Why its to snatch up those chips and save them for her/his lunch of course...
"should the teacher make it their business to be AWARE of this when it does happen and to do something about it?
because that IS THE BASIS of their involvement"...
Actually what it is is the lame rationale for their continued parasitism on the taxpayer...
" Unless you have authorized them in writing to give him his meds, they won't. Avoiding liability being more important than Johhny's health. In fact, they won't give him a Tylenol. Perhaps they will call 911."
they've got the authorization.
are you saying it's up to te teachers to call 911? That's THEIR determination ?
and if they don't you hold them accountable and not the parent?
do you see how this works guy?
larry g says: "when Limbaugh gets on board with an issue..."...
Well considering if and when Limbaugh (are you admitting you listen to Rush?) gets on board an issue on his radio program it usually means he's behind the curve already...
oops.
looks like this may not be an isolated incident:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclusive-2nd-n-c-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough/
note the copy of the actual school policy, in writing, at the bottom.
so much for the "it was one teacher making a mistake" argument.
this is a deliberate and codified policy to get "points" from the ECER-S and specifically discusses making kids take food to comply and charging parents.
the arguments about "misunderstanding" are all pretty much destroyed by that letter.
"but the problem is that you have parents who are not taking proper care of their kids and the dilemma is do you essentially abandon the cause of the kid because their parents are AWOL?"
talk about an overstatement and a straw man.
what evidence AT ALL is there that this was the case here?
her lunch was fine. it was better than the one the school offered.
further, it's none of the school's damn business.
so, if the children of hindu vegetarians come to school, they can be forced to eat meat?
1 serving of meat. it's right there in the letter.
oh, yeah, let's trample their freedom of religion to get more points from some idiot agency!
" Well considering if and when Limbaugh (are you admitting you listen to Rush?) gets on board an issue on his radio program it usually means he's behind the curve already.."
I'm very aware of Rush's positions as well as yours...
and they align... right?
"what is the role of the teacher when this happens?"
First of all, no one at school knows what your child has eaten outside of school, so a bag of chips for lunch might be perfectly fine.
The role of a concerned teacher might be to make you, the parent, aware of what was observed, in a diplomatic manner, so as to express genuine concern, and not appear intrusive.
For Example:
"Dear Parent, I realize this may not really be a problem, but I have observed Johnny eating only a bag of chips for lunch, and am concerned that he may not be getting adequate nutrition from that alone.
I suspect he may, for some reason, have discarded the rest of the lunch you send to school with him. Blah Blah Blah.
I thought you would appreciate being made aware.
Signed:
Concerned teacher.
"they've got the authorization."
School personnel have no authority to give any child medication of any kind without written authorization from the parent or guardian, and they won't. Not even aspirin.
"are you saying it's up to te teachers to call 911? That's THEIR determination ?"
Who do you think is on site that has a phone and the ability to call 911?
They can make the same determination you could make if you observed a child having seizures.
Just be careful not to assume financial responsibility, as ambulance service is expensive.
" First of all, no one at school knows what your child has eaten outside of school, so a bag of chips for lunch might be perfectly fine."
they know you have not eaten since breakfast.
you're talking about 5 years olds guy.
and you're talking about parents who do not answer notes.
are you saying the teacher should be writing notes and waiting?
you guys are a HOOT!
this way of handling it is NOT NEW and yet you ACT LIKE this is a NEW POLICY that violates parents rights.
it's not.
this type of thing has been going on for a while... some kids do not even get a breakfast.
what do you do when the kid says he got no breakfast? write a note?
ya'll are fools ... you've probably never spent a day in a school and you are telling them how to operate and it's based on ideology not practicality.
this is what happens when ideologues get involved in these things.
they've got their ideas.
they have nothing to do with the realities but that's not a problem because they don't care about them anyhow.
have you actually been involved in an elementary school?
Larry,
Evade? Really? Me??
I gave you honest specifics on my variation and you don't accept. You're completely incapable of recognizing statements in context...if you could, you'd understand that I agree with almost everybody on something (even Rush)...talking to you is just like trying to reason with somebody at the DMV...which is why I'm so frightened of to ask this question: Did/Do you work for the school system?
Your answer won't be truthful, so I'm not sure why I ask...but something tells me that you are a typical school employee... and that makes this exercise worth while to me. The irony. The tragedy. You can't make this stuff up.
" Who do you think is on site that has a phone and the ability to call 911?"
are you going to call 911 because they are sick because they did not take their meds?
who do you think is RESPONSIBLE for these kids when they are at school and away from their parents for all manner of issues ?
don't you think the teachers DO HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES to ACT when necessary?
do you think if a teacher KNOWS that a child has not eaten since breakfast and only has a bag of chips that something should be done that day especially if the child says they are hungry?
I don't think you think these issues through.
you think there is a simple answer every time and it is not.
each situation is different and each situations takes time of the teacher away from instruction.
the teacher is essentially functioning as a surrogate parent.
you don't like that idea but it's the reality.
not every parent actually cares for their kid the same way and more than a few parents are less than perfect at the job.
in those cases is the child essentially abandoned at the school because it is considered "interference"?
get to know how an elementary school actually "works" guy.
teachers have to do simple things like make sure the kid gets on the right bus or if the kid is missing a lunch.. get him a lunch.
what do you do with a kid who gets both a free lunch AND a free breakfast but he has no jacket, and his shoes are worn out?
do you know what they do in those situations?
do you think they just ignore the situation?
do you think they are "interfering" when they find that child a jacket?
" Evade? Really? Me?? "
you're EVADING Paul and YOU KNOW IT!
I'm NOT a school employee.. but what difference should that make to you anyhow?
I can tell you who is to my left and right and don't mind telling you.
why are you evading this?
Teacher Larry,
I'm not going to write you a list (100 times on the blackboard) of who I'm to the left and/or right of. I don't like homework, Mr. Larry.
I'm to the right of some on some things and to the left of some on others...why is that so complicated for your structured little brain? I've said it so many ways now, I'm actually starting to figure out how to say it in different languages.
Why does it make a difference that you're a teacher? Well, because it makes sense that you'd defend them - and your inability to think outside a structured, set plan also makes sense now.
Mr. Paul..
I am NOT a teacher but I AM a learner and yes I AM ignorant but on that count I am not alone...rest assured.
you are a wiggling guy on this.
I think we both know you are thoroughly right wing even if you have some outlier beliefs.
you most assuredly are a Limbaugh Lover....
and to be clear...
I respect PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVES people who admit who they are and stand by their principles without having to hurl pejoratives at those they disagree with.
Limbaugh is anything but a principled conservative.
he is everything that is bad about American politics now days IMHO of course.
he is basically a political vandal.. who tears down.. who does not seek a better path..or seek a middle ground, he seeks to destroy...plain and simple.
and all I've asked is if you align with him... in general.. yes or no.
and you're deep into rope-a-dope
Deep into a rope-a-dope, Teacher Larry? You are talking to a Muay Thai kickboxer here and that makes no sense....even for you.
I'll attempt this one last time. I align with nobody, Larry. I'm to the left of Obama on some things. I really have no idea how to make this any clearer. This is why I hated school, Larry...none of you teachers understand me.
You may need people to align yourself with. I do not. I will agree or disagree with people on specifics.
"and you're talking about parents who do not answer notes."
More stuff out of your ass. You have no idea about this.
"are you saying the teacher should be writing notes and waiting?"
Yes. Do you think an otherwise healthy looking child will perish if they only eat a bag of chips for lunch?
The subject of this thread is government overreach. In particular, interfering with a parent's choice of what their child will eat for lunch.
In the original story, and the later one cited by morganovich - which seems to indicate a school policy of interfering with parents choices rather than a one time mistake as you have claimed - the lunches were perfectly adequate, but didn't include what school employees thought should be included, so the children ate something other than what their parents provided for them.
We aren't discussing naked or starving children, or orphans off the street, or any other tear jerking story you've made up. This is about children with good lunches who have had their parent's choices overridden by busybodies who have no business doing so.
" I'm to the left of Obama on some things"
really?
well heckfire...
I'm to the RIGHT of Obama on some things...
looks like we both are "independent" eh?
:-)
let me give you an example.
I think public funds should ONLY be spent on core academics in schools.
everything else, including sports should be ala carte fee-based.
FULLY 1/3 of our local funds go for non-academic purposes.
this comes right out of the hides of people who own property.
" More stuff out of your ass. You have no idea about this."
believe me. I know.
"are you saying the teacher should be writing notes and waiting?"
Yes. Do you think an otherwise healthy looking child will perish if they only eat a bag of chips for lunch?
do you think a parent who forgot the lunch would accept this ?
what do you do with the kid..??
sit him down in the cafeteria with no food or send him to sit alone in the classroom?
do you have a clue?
"The subject of this thread is government overreach. In particular, interfering with a parent's choice of what their child will eat for lunch."
no.. it's about the assertion that it is school policy to examine each lunch brought from home for USDA compliance.
"In the original story, and the later one cited by morganovich - which seems to indicate a school policy of interfering with parents choices rather than a one time mistake as you have claimed - the lunches were perfectly adequate, but didn't include what school employees thought should be included, so the children ate something other than what their parents provided for them."
I'll admit- mistakes were made in INTERPRETATION OF THE STATED POLICY - as opposed to the policy.
"We aren't discussing naked or starving children, or orphans off the street, or any other tear jerking story you've made up. This is about children with good lunches who have had their parent's choices overridden by busybodies who have no business doing so."
we're talking about REAL circumstances in the schools.
the point I'm making to you is that kids are sometimes not well cared for and it falls in the teachers laps who have to do something and they walk a fine line in doing it.
In NC, someone got their nose out of whack and the administrators and the state are saying that they did go out of bounds.
that happens.
that's not the same as a stated policy and it's not the same as a change in policy which is the way the issue was essentially presented.
We're talking about pre-school for at-risk kids where the state has responsibility for their nutrition.
In some states, lunches are not allowed to be brought from home because of the problems that can happen with determining nutrition.
If you think it is NOT the job of schools to determine nutrition - I'd only point out to you that this has been going on for a long time and is not new policy.
this particular instance is not representative of school or state policy and has been so stated.
if you think kids don't come to school without jackets and don't own one... you need to open up your world a bit. It happens.
and when it does. a teacher and the school are honor-bound not to ignore it. You would be to if you were in that situation.
Larry,
You mean we have starving, naked children who don't get their meds and we have school officials worried about apple juice vs. milk?
"I think public funds should ONLY be spent on core academics in schools.
everything else, including sports should be ala carte fee-based."
Then you should be appalled at the idea of taxpayer funded school lunches, and government employees on the taxpayer's dime wasting time checking kids sack lunches.
"this particular instance is not representative of school or state policy and has been so stated."
Did you read the article cited by morganovich which includes a copy of a letter from West Hoke Elementary School Principal Jackie Samuels? It explains that -
"We were cited for the following infractions:
*Children bringing lunches from home - The lunches did not meet the requirements of the USDA Meal Guidelines which require:
1 serving of milk
2 servings of fruit/vegetable
1 serving grains/bread
1 serving meat/meat alternative
Since each child did not have all the required meal components, no credit was earned."
Now, before you leave that without comprehending it, you need to ask yourself how someone KNEW that those lunches from home didn't have all the required meal components.
Keep in mind that this is from a letter to parents from that same Principal, Jackie Samuels, that you quoted as not knowing what was going on. It seems he is advising parents of school policy. This is not a mistake by a confused teacher.
Can you acknowledge you were wrong about that?
Don't bring up that starving, naked children BS, as that's not what we're discussing. The point is government interference in what you feed your children for lunch.
"In some states, lunches are not allowed to be brought from home because of the problems that can happen with determining nutrition."
Reference please.
me: "We aren't discussing naked or starving children, or orphans off the street, or any other tear jerking story you've made up. This is about children with good lunches who have had their parent's choices overridden by busybodies who have no business doing so."
you: "we're talking about REAL circumstances in the schools."
Yes, we're talking about children with good lunches who have had their parent's choices overridden by busybodies who have no business doing so.
"this particular instance is not representative of school or state policy and has been so stated."
It IS school policy. Read the letter from Principal Samuels.
"I'll admit- mistakes were made in INTERPRETATION OF THE STATED POLICY - as opposed to the policy."
Read the Samuels letter on school policy.
On 2 different occasions parents perfectly adequate lunch choices have been interfered with by the school.
"We're talking about pre-school for at-risk kids where the state has responsibility for their nutrition."
Parents have responsibility for their childs nutrition.
"that's not the same as a stated policy and it's not the same as a change in policy which is the way the issue was essentially presented."
This is the schools policy, as outlined in two different stories. There is no mention of a change in policy, or new policy. If you think there is, please cite it, otherwise quit making stuff up.
this was not the entire public school system.
this was a special program for at-risk kids.
the state is responsible for insuring that at-risk kids receive not only nutritious food but adequate food.
this is why many free/subsidized lunch programs also have a breakfast
parents send their kids to school without breakfast and without a lunch?
yes.
re: banning home-brought lunches
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aparna-vashisht/school-bans-lunches-broug_b_855517.html
http://justbento.com/school-ban-bringing-lunch-home
they do this at some early elementary school programs for at-risk kids.
you focus on the parents that provide the right kind and adequate food.
the problem is that some kids do not receive adequate food nor nutritious food and the issue is what, if anything, should schools do about it.
and most folks do not believe "nothing".
so that gets schools and teachers into the business of looking at school lunches and yes.. there is room for mischief as evidenced in this incident.
your question about serving lunches on the public dollar in general.
In our local school system - the food service is contracted out and students pay for meals and the service is approaching self-supporting status.
the free/reduced breakfast and lunches are tax-paid.
you need to see a 6 year old that has not had breakfast guy.
and you need to say what you would do once you accept the reality that mom/dad are not likely to provide that kid with a breakfast.
We can and should condemn the parents. but the reality is this is not a rare thing.
Every school has a certain amount of kids who do not get regular meals.
it happens.
what do you do about it?
"the state is responsible for insuring that at-risk kids receive not only nutritious food but adequate food"...
larry g do you have any idea of just how stupid that sounds?
Mind you I'm not saying that you're wrong in this comment (far from it in fact) but the whole idea of the state taking a hand in the care & feeding of someone else's responbility is beyond bizzare...
" Mind you I'm not saying that you're wrong in this comment (far from it in fact) but the whole idea of the state taking a hand in the care & feeding of someone else's responbility is beyond bizzare... "
care and feeding of those unable to take care of themselves
.. in general?
or care and feeding of kids?
stake out your position.
"Then you should be appalled at the idea of taxpayer funded school lunches, and government employees on the taxpayer's dime wasting time checking kids sack lunches"...
Heck ron h! I'm appalled at the idea of taxpayer funded education such as it is in the US...
Even the socialist OECD is positively underwhelmed by the quality of US's public education sytem...
".. in general?
or care and feeding of kids?
stake out your position"...
NOT the reason to use extorted tax dollars...
There is NO law mandating charity and this isn't actually charity but outright theft and wealth redistribution by state's parasitic bureaucracy...
It helps rationalize their continued feeding at the taxpayer financed trough...
Liberals are always willing to spend someone else's money to finance 'their' stupid ideas...
so you are opposed to the use of ANY tax dollars for ANY food for ANYONE.
correct?
Yes larry g that is correct...
Wealth redistribution regardless of the faux reasons offered is still theft...
Fine. your view is sold gold consistent.
Now, how do you reconcile your view in a country that decides things like this by counting votes?
Is it a valid exercise of governance for those who are governed to willingly choose to impose a tax to feed the hungry?
"Now, how do you reconcile your view in a country that decides things like this by counting votes?"...
Well larry g what you are seeing is 'vote buying' not vote counting...
"Is it a valid exercise of governance for those who are governed to willingly choose to impose a tax to feed the hungry?"...
O.K. larry g when was the last time you saw a ballot stating precisely, "vote to increase taxes so we can continue to pander to the parasites" or any kinder, gentler variation of that theme?
I've yet to see it and I've been voting since '72...
So if the government is starkly honest with the voters do you think 'wasting away on welfare' would be a multi-generational problem?
" So if the government is starkly honest with the voters"
voters are the government.
would a citizen referenda support food stamps and free/reduced lunches for kids and homeless shelters that serve food?
I think they would - overwhelmingly?
do you know of any major politician or party that makes clear they would do away with taxes for these things?
it's true we have no direct vote and I'll admit that puts us on the proverbial slippery slopes - and yes.. in the end that causes blowback...but I think a solid majority of people support food stamps, school lunches, and food for the poor paid for by taxes.
so you live as a minority who disagrees with the majority but it's the system we have and it's way the hell better than the systems they have in Iran and China.
do I think schools should be deciding what kids are eating in their home-brought lunches?
no.
do I think if a kid is known to be not getting enough food and says so himself that he should be offered more food?
yes.
there's some daylight between those two positions but they are certainly not mutually exclusive.
this who thing got started by a claim that the govt had exceeded it's authority with an onerous policy.
that claim is patently false and yet the right wing proceeds blithely on with their self-created agenda21-like conspiracy myth.
"voters are the government"...
Obviously the voters are no longer the government larry g...
Voting to steal someone else's money (nearly 50% don't pay anything for the services received) doesn't make it anything other than theft...
"do you know of any major politician or party that makes clear they would do away with taxes for these things?"...
Why yes I do larry g but since their stance can't buy votes on a national scale its unlikely you'll ever hear about these people...
"so you live as a minority who disagrees with the majority but it's the system we have and it's way the hell better than the systems they have in Iran and China"...
Gee larry g! You sure went out on a limb with that one... Who says I'm in the minority? What credible information (btw Wikipedia doesn't count anymore than the New York Times) to back up that rather bizzare statement?
"do I think if a kid is known to be not getting enough food and says so himself that he should be offered more food?"...
Well good, then YOU feed them but don't try to rationalize wealth redistribution as the way to do it...
"this who thing got started by a claim that the govt had exceeded it's authority with an onerous policy.
that claim is patently false and yet the right wing proceeds blithely on with their self-created agenda21-like conspiracy myth"...
Well you have no problem being consistently wrong do you larry g?
The claim as you put it isn't wrong and the fact that the only way the state can finance what you try to rationalize as a good and necessary deeds but what are in effect 'nanny state actions' is through the theft of other peoples' wealth...
So you are in effect a thief larry g, pure & simple...
re: the minority.
really?
;-)
methinks you are guy.
tax = theft = minority view.
most schools are funded at the local level where voters can easily throw out of office local leaders who get taxes primarily from property.
Can you name, out of the thousands of local governments - the one that was thrown out of office for levying taxes on property to fund schools (and school lunches)?
you've got this philosophy, ideology, etc but it doesn't represent any reality that I'm aware of so I ask for some examples from you.
the truth is that the "tax is theft" rhetoric is largely not believed by the vast majority of taxpayers even as they grump about their tax dollars being wasted; A huge number of them - those with kids - think taxes for schools are a fine and dandy idea.
right?
re: banning home-brought lunches
link - Little Village Academy
link - Little Village Academy
This is a story about one school in Chicago. You said:
"In some states, lunches are not allowed to be brought from home because of the problems that can happen with determining nutrition."
Do you want to modify that, or admit you are making stuff up?
"they do this at some early elementary school programs for at-risk kids."
Reference please.
And, if you claim that they do this at some elementary school programs for at-risk kids, why are you arguing that it's NOT school policy at West Hoke?
You can't just write stuff you think sounds good, you have to actually know what you are talking about, and so far on this issue, you are missing the boat.
you are correct about the slippery slope.
we start out trying to do a "little bit" and mission creep is relentless and yes it's those damned liberals that can never find enough ideas for more and more do-gooder things paid for by others.
and what's REALLY FUNNY is that at the same time we have free/reduced lunches at school as well as food stamps (SNAP) - we have what is characterized as a crisis in childhood obesity.
go figure.
so the liberals want us to feed some of the kids and starve the others?
juandos: "Heck ron h! I'm appalled at the idea of taxpayer funded education such as it is in the US..."
I am too, but when dealing with Larry, it's important to keep a very narrow focus, or he will wander in a random fashion all over the map.
" Do you want to modify that, or admit you are making stuff up?"
no.. it was actually in one of the stories about the NC incident also.
"they do this at some early elementary school programs for at-risk kids."
Reference please.
" Can I bring lunch for my child?
Georgia’s Pre-K requires centers and schools provide a complete nutritional meal for children. Local schools/sites may set policies regarding bringing food to school. If your child has identified special food requirements, contact your Pre-K provider for individual guidance."
http://decal.ga.gov/bfts/Faq.aspx?cat=pre-k
there are others.
"And, if you claim that they do this at some elementary school programs for at-risk kids, why are you arguing that it's NOT school policy at West Hoke?"
because they explicitly say it is not policy there. there is no one going through kids bags...
it's teachers observing lunch as it is consumed... and it's only to SUPPLEMENT not REPLACE and then only if the kid wants the additional.
that's the standard where I live also.
"You can't just write stuff you think sounds good, you have to actually know what you are talking about, and so far on this issue, you are missing the boat."
no we're not. we're observing the right wing pulling stuff out of their ass that makes no sense and is not true.. just to create yet another wedge issue...
we're talking about political vandals at work again...
" I am too, but when dealing with Larry, it's important to keep a very narrow focus, or he will wander in a random fashion all over the map. "
yup.. he's going to keep you boys honest..
Juandos - to his credit - is usually consistent, not hypocritical and intellectually honest in his positions - unlike some others here.
having said that Juandos is to the right of Atilla the Hun and makes folks like ROn look like part time limped wrist liberals while they pretend to be libertarian.
;-)
"so that gets schools and teachers into the business of looking at school lunches and yes.. there is room for mischief as evidenced in this incident."
You must not realize how remarkably inconsistent your comments are, and how you have argued in a full circle on this subject.
You first claimed that checking lunches wasn't a school policy, now you claim it is.
You complain that there's a problem, that some students come to school without breakfast or lunch, and therefore schools must check the lunches that ARE brought to school.
Do you really wonder why you aren't taken seriously?
"Is it a valid exercise of governance for those who are governed to willingly choose to impose a tax to feed the hungry?"...
On themselves only, Larry, those who wish to contribute to feed hungry people are free to do so.
It's NOT legitimate to force people to pay for things they don't wish to pay for.
" You must not realize how remarkably inconsistent your comments are, and how you have argued in a full circle on this subject.
You first claimed that checking lunches wasn't a school policy, now you claim it is."
you cannot force yourself to admit that there is policy and practice.
and policy says one thing - and it is practiced to a 99% compliance and then we have someone who essentially violated the stated policy.
you view is that the two are not different.
I think it matters.
you call that inconsistent.
I call it intelligence and common sense.
" On themselves only, Larry, those who wish to contribute to feed hungry people are free to do so.
It's NOT legitimate to force people to pay for things they don't wish to pay for. "
indeed it is.
when you elect someone to office or participate in a referenda.. that's exactly what you do.
"most schools are funded at the local level where voters can easily throw out of office local leaders who get taxes primarily from property."
The questionable practice of checking school lunches brought from home resulted from a STATE policy of enforcing FEDERAL guidelines.
You can't squirm out of it that easily. Please try to stay on topic.
" The questionable practice of checking school lunches brought from home resulted from a STATE policy of enforcing FEDERAL guidelines.
You can't squirm out of it that easily. Please try to stay on topic."
Federal Guidelines for at risk kids in PreK/similar schools.
It is NOT the policy of K-12 school systems.
you are, like the right wing, being intellectually dishonest here.
check your own local schools guy.
every time I deal with you - I have to put up with your intellectual dishonesty.
why?
"because they explicitly say it is not policy there. there is no one going through kids bags..."
You still haven't read the article cited by morganovich, have you. Unless you do, this point can't be discussed further. It includes a letter from the school principal explaining policy, and also explaining that an inspector determined that not all children's lunches met USDA guidelines.
"it's teachers observing lunch as it is consumed... and it's only to SUPPLEMENT not REPLACE and then only if the kid wants the additional."
How would a teacher know what's in a child's sandwich as it's being consumed? An inspector obviously missed the cheese, or there would have been no suggestion that a milk group was missing.
There is no suggestion that someone is inspecting each lunch box or bag brought that to school, Larry, so you can quit trying to confuse the issue with that objection.
Someone inspected something, however, to determine that the lunch in the original article wasn't adequate, which is nonesense in any case.
" Can I bring lunch for my child?
Georgia’s Pre-K requires centers and schools provide a complete nutritional meal for children. Local schools/sites may set policies regarding bringing food to school. If your child has identified special food requirements, contact your Pre-K provider for individual guidance.""
You're kidding, right? As usual you didn't understand what you read. The question is not can I SEND lunch to school with my child, but can I BRING lunch to school for my child.
I presume that means parents showing up at school with food for their child. I can understand the school discouraging that idea, although the answer didn't actually address the question. It certainly didn't address the issue of children bringing lunch to school.
"there are others."
Other what? Failures to support your claim that "In some states, lunches are not allowed to be brought from home "?
Let's see these "others". You're not just making this stuff up, are you?
we're talking about a specific Pre-K program not the entire school system.
the program is for eligible 4-year olds.
read the program:
http://ncchildcare.dhhs.state.nc.us/pdf_forms/NCPre-KProgramReq8242011.pdf
do you know who DCDEE is?
" The NC Pre-K Program is a program of the Division of Child Development and Early
Education in the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.
The NC Pre-K Program is designed to provide high-quality educational experiences to
enhance school readiness for eligible four-year-olds."
this is a program for at-risk children - not the general school population...
and the rules for nutrition are clearly stated:
" D. Nutrition
Sites must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements
during the regular school day. The partial/full cost of meals may be charged when
families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals.
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."
the original article implied that the entire school and school system was subject to this policy and it's not true.
this policy applies ONLY to At-risk kids in this particular program and the requirements are well documented and available before enrollment.
Parents have to agree to enroll their kids in this program.
what the right wing did here is what they typically do - misrepresent the facts to make it sound like something it's not and yet another "NEW" ...overreach outrage.
you should read the document guy.
" D. Nutrition
Sites must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements
during the regular school day. The partial/full cost of meals may be charged when
families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals.
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."
what this proves once again is the lies and misrepresentations that you and others in the right wing are willing to engage in to suit a hateful agenda.
this is a specific program for at risk kids - not the general school population.
you should be ashamed to pursue this on the basis that you have.
it's just plain dishonest.
" What is North Carolina Pre-Kindergarten (NC Pre-K)?
North Carolina Pre-Kindergarten is a voluntary pre-kindergarten program designed to prepare at risk four-year-olds in North Carolina for success in school. High quality childcare centers partner to provide a developmentally appropriate curriculum and structured environment for students. "
http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/cmsdepartments/ci/pre-kservices/Pages/North%20Carolina%20Pre-K.aspx
this is a special program that is VOLUNTARY.
why are you and your right wing bedfellows so eager to promote untruths?
this is a VOLUNTARY program with nutrition rules that are well documented.
and yet you are more than willing to subvert the truth.
I can respect someone who holds a principled, honest position even if I disagree with it.
what I cannot respect are people who seek to subvert the truth.
"we're talking about a specific Pre-K program not the entire school system."
Jesus, Larry, why is this so hard for you? You are citing a STATE PROGRAM that includes a POLICY requiring that preschools provide meals that meet USDA GUIDELINES.
This same policy requires lunches brought from home meet these same nutritional guidelines, and therein lies the problem. Someone is deciding that lunches packed by parents don't meet the requirements, and they must be inspected to determine that.
That is government overreach - something you agreed with earlier.
All this extraneous bullshit you keep throwing up about kids not being fed, not having coats, K-12 requirements, inadequate parents, etc., etc., etc., is not pertinent to this discussion, which is about government interference with a parents decision of what to feed their kids for lunch, when that lunch is perfectly adequate.
Whether a child drinks milk or apple juice with their lunch doesn't matter one iota to their health. The idea that the school must interfere with that because they are required to do so, is a shining example of excess government involvement in our lives.
That is all there is to this subject, not all that other stuff you keep getting confused by.
If you understood what you have read, you would realize that each news story, each reference you have cited, and most commenters here, including me, have been telling you exactly the same thing from the beginning.
Your inability to understand that, and your insistance on illogically wandering around from subject to subject is your problem, not mine.
If you wish to learn, and you have said you do, you need to read and unterstand what others have written, even when it's outside your narrow little comfort zone, and you need to read and try to understand references people helpfully provide for you, instead of taking the easy way out by rejecting things you don't like as right-wing blather.
There is no conspiricy against you Larry, only frustration with your refusal to listen, consider, and learn.
this is a VOLUNTARY problem for a small group of kids - not a school-wide policy.
the rules are available to the people who sign up for the program.
you are being purposely disingenuous as to what this is and is not.
this is NOT "great moments in Bureaucratic Excess".
Instead it is yet another right wing created lie.
and you are a willing part of it.
the girl's mother is FREE to leave the program.
No other kids in the elementary school are subject to these requirements.
it's a LIE guy and you are more than willing to entertain and spread it.
Congrats for continuing your intellectual dishonesty on issues.
Keep in mind that this is a program that is housed within a school system and that there are no dedicated staff - just assigned staff who interpret the rules - and the rules are clear that home-brought lunches must meet USDA standards.
and someone made a mistake in carrying out the rules AND the kid misunderstood that they were to SUPPLEMENT their meal NOT replace it.
the parent is FREE to pull out of the program.
you are wrong in multiple ways but the most important way is they you do not seek the truth and the facs but instead engage in the same slimy behavior that Limbaugh and company does.
and tell me WHO the BLAZE is?
who are they?
they've written editorial content.
who wrote it and who are they?
the one thing they did was provide the actual memo.
if you read that memo and then do the appropriate searchs based on keywords in that memo -you get the truth.
and the truth is that this is NOT a general school policy nor is it a "new" policy nor does it have anything to do with new Fed or State regulations much less Obama or Pelosi or anyone else.
this is pure and simple an existing voluntary program with clear rules and the right wing has blown it out of all proportion to serve their wedge strategy.. and you.. instead of seeking the truth sign on to their illicit way of doing business.
you should be ashamed.
that's not proper behavior guy.
you are free to have opinions but messing with the facts and agreeing with others who mess with the facts is reprehensible.
but that pretty much defines the right wing these days.
the truth is the enemy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"when Limbaugh gets on board with an issue and you are also on board with the same issue.. that kinda of says where you align..right?"
Can you say "ad hominem?" Typical of most progressives. They can't contruct a logical argument, so they'll try to discredit yours by attacking the person making it. I'm so tired of the poorly educated. It's distressing that people like this are allowed to vote.
" "when Limbaugh gets on board with an issue and you are also on board with the same issue.. that kinda of says where you align..right?"
why is it an Ad Hominem to say people "align"?
First foremost larry g why are YOU punking out on the question of listening to Rush Limbaugh?
You think this punk reply flies? "I'm very aware of Rush's positions as well as yours"...
So you don't listen to Limbaugh but you're yammering on like you know something about him...
In case you're wondering Limbaugh is liberal by my standards or at least his radio position/public position is...
Well larry g is consistent, consistently wrong as usual: "tax = theft = minority view.
most schools are funded at the local level where voters can easily throw out of office local leaders who get taxes primarily from property"...
Apparently you either aren't paying attention (as in abysmally ignorant of the subject you're expounding on) or you're hoping other people won't remember how even though schools are paid for on the local level for most of the costs there still two problems with the supposed, 'throwing out the local leaders' formula that used to work consistently...
Problem 1) federal mandates some funded, most aren't...
Problem 2) parasitic ambulance chasers in black robes making law at the bench...
Every state in the union has experienced these problems, many of them having to do with school busing if that shakes any memories and classes for those 'special children' which are either short bus riders or juvenile deliquents...
When education was merely a local and state situation most all these problems could be mitigated to one degree or another...
Now the federal government has stuck their face into the situation and short of finding a state governor, legislature, and citizenry with big enough cojones (something the fed is depending on not happening) that are willing to completely defund the public school systems these idiotic lunch programs, idotic civil justice programs, and all the rest of the liberal inspired politically correct crapoal will just continue to bleed the citizens of the wealth a little at a time...
"and the truth is that this is NOT a general school policy nor is it a "new" policy nor does it have anything to do with new Fed or State regulations much less Obama or Pelosi or anyone else."
Blah, blah, blah. same old unrelated nonsense from Larry. Try again when you have something meaningful to contribute.
there is no "blah blah".
there is a simple truth here and that truth is that this is a special program only for 4 year old at-risk kids and it's voluntary and the rules about home-brought lunches are clearly documented and available to those who sign their kids up.
it does not apply to the whole school nor all students. It has a very narrow purpose that applies ONLY to at-risk 4 years old enrolled in this voluntary program.
that's the truth.
the program is housed within an elementary school and there are teachers who are trying to perform according to how the program has been defined - including lunches - both provided and brought.
At risk kids typically suffer from a number of deficits - among which are insufficient food and not enough of the right kinds of food - like milk - which kids need to develop both body and mind.
and what the right wing and it's supporters like you did - was to take this and turn it into something its not.
It's not about all students or the whole school or some kind of new and highly inappropriate policy.
it's none of that.
but that does not matter to the anti-govt folks.
the truth does not matter.
what matters is to blow it up and use it as a wedge issue even if it's totally not the truth.
and this "works" in part because the right has figured out that they can lie and get away with it because many people are just too lazy to track down the facts.
It's becoming a common practice and you can spot it coming a mile away... like when Mark Perry posted this with the title "Great Moments in Bureaucratic Excess" which then was picked up by dozens of right wing zealot sites who promoted it as the "truth" when it was the opposite.
this is why drives the right these days.
it's not about the truth. It's about anti-govt, anti-Obama ideology... whatever "fits" the narrative is fair game.
I'm actually surprised to not see Pelosi and Michelle Obama roped into this also.
my role is that every time I see this.. I'm adding my 2cents worth and I'm going to back up my point ...with FACTS:
http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/cmsdepartments/ci/pre-kservices/Pages/North%20Carolina%20Pre-K.aspx
"the program is housed within an elementary school and there are teachers who are trying to perform according to how the program has been defined - including lunches - both provided and brought.
At risk kids typically suffer from a number of deficits - among which are insufficient food and not enough of the right kinds of food - like milk - which kids need to develop both body and mind."
So...In your view, is it OK for state inspectors and teachers to check lunches that kids have brought from home to see that they meet USDA guidelines for the DCDEE program, or isn't it?
You initially wrote that you would be outraged by such an activity.
Here's what you said:
"if this is school policy or USDA policy - you'll find me just as outraged as others.."
Which is it? Is checking lunches brought from home an outrageous infringement on a parent's right to decide what their child should eat for lunch, or is it an acceptable practice?
Gee ron h in looking at larry g's latest comment all I can say is that I'm amazed at your perservance and your attempts to explain the painfully obvious in as simple a way as you can...
" So...In your view, is it OK for state inspectors and teachers to check lunches that kids have brought from home to see that they meet USDA guidelines for the DCDEE program, or isn't it?
You initially wrote that you would be outraged by such an activity."
and I would still
Here's what you said:
"if this is school policy or USDA policy - you'll find me just as outraged as others.."
"Which is it? Is checking lunches brought from home an outrageous infringement on a parent's right to decide what their child should eat for lunch, or is it an acceptable practice? "
it's a voluntary program that you can opt out of. You agree to the rules when you sign on.
" Gee ron h in looking at larry g's latest comment all I can say is that I'm amazed at your perservance and your attempts to explain the painfully obvious in as simple a way as you can.."
no explaining is needed.
it's cut and dried right-wing beat the drums and get out the pitchfork and torches blather...
larry g says: "it's cut and dried right-wing beat the drums and get out the pitchfork and torches blather"...
Meanwhile we continue see a constant spew of leftist, mindless drivel in hopes of pushing the parasitic envelope...
Speaking of which larry g you're still punking out on the question about whether or not you actually listen to Limbaugh...
Why is that?
Or is it your goal in life to parrot 2nd and 3rd hand rants on what Limbaugh is supposedly about?
" Speaking of which larry g you're still punking out on the question about whether or not you actually listen to Limbaugh...
Why is that?
Or is it your goal in life to parrot 2nd and 3rd hand rants on what Limbaugh is supposedly about? "
Jundos.. I think you got that wrong.
It was MY QUESTION to PAUL and he evaded it.
I don't usually listen to the man unless got a different position from the rest of the right.
how about you? we know you are the RIGHT of Limbaugh.
what things is he to your left?
"Gee ron h in looking at larry g's latest comment all I can say is that I'm amazed at your perservance and your attempts to explain the painfully obvious in as simple a way as you can..."
When I have the time, I consider it good practice, sort of like playing Whack-A-Mole. You never know what silly, unrelated thing he will pop up with next.
And, I too wonder how someone can know what Limbaugh's position is on any given subject unless one listens to him.
Larry says:
"I don't usually listen to the man unless got a different position from the rest of the right."
I don't see how anyone could possibly recognize a different position without listening regularly.
Maybe this is just one more thing Larry has pulled out of his ass.
"and I'm pretty sure I'd lose hands down in a "pull it out of your ass" contest..."
Nope, you needn't be so modest. No one holds a candle to you when it comes to making irrelevant, unsupported, off topic, and meaningless statements. No one else at this blog even comes close.
really? Is this particular case YOU were the one that was totally off the mark and totally in bed with the right wing narrative which was totally wrong and full of lies.
you purport to be careful about facts,
you are the opposite.
you're not only not careful. you flipping don't care if it suits your right wing crapology.
you did the same with social security if you recall.
" irrelevant, unsupported, off topic, and meaningless statements."
that pretty much describe the TITLE of this blog as well as the defenders/believer of the premise - including you my friend,
you and your right wing echo chamber buddies were more than willing to believe the narrative even though it has been thoroughly proven to be totally a lie.
notice that Juandos does not dispute the references provided:
http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/cmsdepartments/ci/pre-kservices/Pages/North%20Carolina%20Pre-K.aspx
THIS is what YOU call "irrelevent" and Mark Perry chose to not do due diligence on:
" What is North Carolina Pre-Kindergarten (NC Pre-K)?
North Carolina Pre-Kindergarten is a voluntary pre-kindergarten program designed to prepare at risk four-year-olds in North Carolina for success in school. High quality childcare centers partner to provide a developmentally appropriate curriculum and structured environment for students."
this information was available to EVERYONE including the Parent, the reporter from the Locke paper, Mark Perry, and you.
but none of you chose to dig into the fact and instead chose to demagogue the issue.
this speaks reams about YOUR character dude.
you've aligned yourself with those who don't give a flip about the truth as long as it serves your ideology and then you have the nerve to tell others about the "relevance" of their comments.
these comments are not irrelevant at all.
they're dead on to the way you handle yourself on issues.
I have NEVER heard you say you are wrong about something - that you did make a mistake.
we all do.
some of us can never admit it - they just continue to insist they are right.
which are you?
Post a Comment
<< Home