Oh please: of course it isn't wrong for an official to care. But care/concern is totally different from enforced policy. We aren't talking about the former, we're talking about the latter.
And whatever the motivation: its still none. Of. Their. Business.
We make it the business of the schools to care about the welfare of the children of this country. That is a primary purpose of the education system, to better the students. It is also of no surprise that a child who eats healthfully will do better in school.
If you don't think it is the responsibility of the schools to make it their business to care about the health of your child, do you believe they should also get rid of physical education?
We make it the business of the schools to care about the welfare of the children of this country. That is a primary purpose of the education system, to better the students. It is also of no surprise that a child who eats healthfully will do better in school.
If you don't think it is the responsibility of the schools to make it their business to care about the health of your child, do you believe they should also get rid of physical education?
Speaking as a teacher, it is ultimately the parent who is, or should be, the ultimate arbiter in a child's life of their well-being, NOT the education system. The education system should supplement a parent's endeavors, NOT the other way around. Schools make piss poor parents, and I can tell you now that, nine times out of ten, a good student is a product of his home life more than he is of his school system.
If a school wants to educate my kid on healthy eating habits: great! If they want to educate him on healthy lifestyles in general, and even grade him on that info, great! If they try to enforce that lifestyle via policy? Hell no.
Speaking as a teacher, it is ultimately the parent who is, or should be, the ultimate arbiter in a child's life of their well-being, NOT the education system. The education system should supplement a parent's endeavors, NOT the other way around. Schools make piss poor parents, and I can tell you now that, nine times out of ten, a good student is a product of his home life more than he is of his school system.
If a school wants to educate my kid on healthy eating habits: great! If they want to educate him on healthy lifestyles in general, and even grade him on that info, great! If they try to enforce that lifestyle via policy? Hell no.
Handing a kid an apple is hardly enforcing that lifestyle, it is giving the kid a chance to actually be able to choose which lifestyle for themselves. Like the article said, they didn't take away the kids lunch, they supplemented it.
Handing a kid an apple is hardly enforcing that lifestyle, it is giving the kid a chance to actually be able to choose which lifestyle for themselves. Like the article said, they didn't take away the kids lunch, they supplemented it.
I guess we didn't read the same article. Words like "require" and "fee" sound like enforcement to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
Mystery is largely correct in this regard. It is plainly obvious that the government overstepped it's bounds in this matter. The only way that anyone could not realize this is if they are a complete liberal homer.
@Kraj: C'mon, we're not dumb. Obviously the school/state/whatever is trying to save face now, but that doesn't change what actually happened. Unless the lady just made up the notion that she was sent a letter from the school saying that they would charge her, and hoped no one would notice.
As a parent, I am fine with there being a recommended diet. As long as a recommendation is all that it is. I am not fine with the state/school overruling my choices as to what my kid(s) eat. If my kids were really fat and unhealthy, then they would be within their rights to bring my kids eating habits to my attention, and educate both of us as to what is proper eating and why it is important. But they still wouldn't have the right to decide what my kids eat. That is my responsibility, and mine alone.
And besides, the government has to have better things to do with it's money than pay someone to snoop through the lunches of 4 year olds.
@Timothy: Apparently you didn't actually read the same article as everyone else? They did not supplement the meal at all. They refused to let the kid eat the meal that her mother had prepared, and instead gave her a completely different meal(out of which she only ate the chicken nuggets and threw the rest away).
@Timothy: Apparently you didn't actually read the same article as everyone else? They did not supplement the meal at all. They refused to let the kid eat the meal that her mother had prepared, and instead gave her a completely different meal(out of which she only ate the chicken nuggets and threw the rest away).
Where does it say they didn't let her touch her food? Cause from the article kraj linked, I do not see that at all, what I see is...
"The Journal reports the child was then provided with a full cafeteria tray, from which she ate three chicken nuggets. The Journal reported they spoke with the girl’s mother after her daughter returned home with her home-packed meal untouched. The mother has not been publicly identified.
...
If a teacher feels that a child’s home-packed meal does not meet the state’s requirements, the teacher is required to supplement the meal with whatever is missing to ensure the child is provided with a healthy lunch.
Nothing from a home-packed meal is ever taken away and teachers cannot force a child to eat whatever supplemental servings are provided."
Except now mom has to pay for the school lunch she never wanted for her kid, this is the nature of the nanny state.
Have you even read the updated arcticle or any of the recent posts? The mom was apparently not charged for the meal. She may have gotten a letter saying she was going to be charged but they never charged her. Pay attention.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Matt McCullough »
I'm bad at magic, you're bad at magic, and Level 4 Pro Ari Lax is terrible at magic.
What are they teaching you in public school again?
while you might not think that it is a big deal. it really is a big deal. it shows just how much government thinks it can take control of your life.
time to wise up.
Although I attend public school, I am in a worldview oriented (although self admittedly, slightly liberally biased), magnet program that reports not to the US government but to a private British company, the entire curriculum is created by said company.
Realize that I am not saying the school/government is justified (it isn't). But saying that you would file a million dollar lawsuit against your school for something that is both trivial and the result, in part, of a mistake, and entirely legal ( however misguided the law that made it legal may be), is just as misguided.
you didn't read the article. it happened exactly the way that it was reported.
that retract was a cover up on the whole thing because the state looked really stupid. wasn't charged. they kid brought home a paper saying they did. they just didn't go through with it because of the media spot light.
This leans on the level of conspiracy theorizing. Unless you have some way to back this up (I red both articles in full), I don't see where this is coming from.
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
Although I attend public school, I am in a worldview oriented (although self admittedly, slightly liberally biased), magnet program that reports not to the US government but to a private British company, the entire curriculum is created by said company.
This has to do with what exactly?
Realize that I am not saying the school/government is justified (it isn't). But saying that you would file a million dollar lawsuit against your school for something that is both trivial and the result, in part, of a mistake, and entirely legal ( however misguided the law that made it legal may be), is just as misguided.
who here is talking about a lawsuit? other people were about if the school failed to realize a kid had a alergic reaction to a food and gave it to them.
I never said anything about a lawsuit. What i feel is stupid is that some paper pusher thinks they know better than a parent what food a kid should eat.
they sent her sandwich banana fruit drink and chips home and gave her a tray of processed garbage and called it healthier just to try and pass some stupid inspection by a state controled program.
This leans on the level of conspiracy theorizing. Unless you have some way to back this up (I red both articles in full), I don't see where this is coming from.
ok reading comprehension is very important.
1. they reported that it was a state worker. then they retracted it, but the only person that would be inspecting a state run program would be the state.
2. they sent a paper home with the child saying that they were going to charge 1.25 for the tray they gave her daughter. then all of a sudden the mother wasn't charged.
yea it was a save face cover up. only it failed miserably.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
You can test for most food borne allergies. Having developed anaphylaxis to iodine, it was not until a screening that I realized I could no longer eat seafood. Which sucked than and sucks now. At least iodine is not common in school lunches. But for peanuts, soy, gluten etc, yeah it could get kinda ugly.
The whole fiasco is a tad ridiculous in my opinion.
Hmm, even more interesting. The kid at the center of the story was part of an opt in state subsidized preschool for low income families and part of the program was that kids would have their lunches supplemented if considered inadequate. The program was completely voluntary.
I, for one, am shocked (shocked!) that a "the government totally sucks!" thread from mystery has turned out to be less than accurate. Because normally, this sort of story, especially when reported by an upstanding news organization such as Fox News, turns out to be 100% true as reported, and totally not a small matter blown way out of proportion by people with an axe to grind. This is ever so out of character!
I, for one, am shocked (shocked!) that a "the government totally sucks!" thread from mystery has turned out to be less than accurate. Because normally, this sort of story, especially when reported by an upstanding news organization such as Fox News, turns out to be 100% true as reported, and totally not a small matter blown way out of proportion by people with an axe to grind. This is ever so out of character!
Much of the report is confirmed by the follow up. They decided not to charge her later.
Probably because the word got out and they were embarrassed by their own buffoonery.
Moral of the story: when you do something stupid, it doesn't stop being a story just because you make good on your error.
Quote from Timothy, Mimeslayer »
Hmm, even more interesting. The kid at the center of the story was part of an opt in state subsidized preschool for low income families and part of the program was that kids would have their lunches supplemented if considered inadequate. The program was completely voluntary.
Where does it say they didn't let her touch her food? Cause from the article kraj linked, I do not see that at all, what I see is...
"The Journal reports the child was then provided with a full cafeteria tray, from which she ate three chicken nuggets. The Journal reported they spoke with the girl’s mother after her daughter returned home with her home-packed meal untouched. The mother has not been publicly identified.
...
If a teacher feels that a child’s home-packed meal does not meet the state’s requirements, the teacher is required to supplement the meal with whatever is missing to ensure the child is provided with a healthy lunch.
Nothing from a home-packed meal is ever taken away and teachers cannot force a child to eat whatever supplemental servings are provided."
Maybe you just don't have kids. And, you know, forgot that you ever were one. If it was as simple as 'your lunch is missing something, please eat these vegetables also', then they would have just given the kids the veggies and been done with it. Instead, they gave her a different plate full of food. Of course she is going to eat that instead, she didn't even understand what was going on.
The fact that the girl wasnt allowed to eat what her mother packed is upsetting. Its even more so upsetting that they provided the child with a meal that might have been even less healthy and nutritious then what the mother provided. But what really gets me, is that the school has someone to inspect the children's lunch boxes. As if they were a TSA screener searching people for weapons.
Getting back to the nutrition of the schools provided lunch. I really doubt that 3 "pink slim" filled chicken nuggets had more nutrition in them then that bag of chips the little girls mother provided (let alone anything else her mother packed). Personally, if I was the parent, I would continue to send the same meal with my child everyday. But in the form of organic and healthy versions of the food. Organic free range ham and cheese on whole wheat bread, organic banana, organic apple juice, and some low sodium chips (baked w/ sea salt). And let them try and telling me I wasnt sending a proper meal with my child.
These requirements are made by people who benefit the most. A lot of the people who work for the USDA are some type of ex-employee of large food companies (Conagra, Monsanto, ect...) So any nutritional requirement from the USDA is a joke.
The fact that the girl wasnt allowed to eat what her mother packed is upsetting. Its even more so upsetting that they provided the child with a meal that might have been even less healthy and nutritious then what the mother provided. But what really gets me, is that the school has someone to inspect the children's lunch boxes. As if they were a TSA screener searching people for weapons.
Getting back to the nutrition of the schools provided lunch. I really doubt that 3 "pink slim" filled chicken nuggets had more nutrition in them then that bag of chips the little girls mother provided (let alone anything else her mother packed). Personally, if I was the parent, I would continue to send the same meal with my child everyday. But in the form of organic and healthy versions of the food. Organic free range ham and cheese on whole wheat bread, organic banana, organic apple juice, and some low sodium chips (baked w/ sea salt). And let them try and telling me I wasnt sending a proper meal with my child.
These requirements are made by people who benefit the most. A lot of the people who work for the USDA are some type of ex-employee of large food companies (Conagra, Monsanto, ect...) So any nutritional requirement from the USDA is a joke.
Fiction is often upsetting. Because the child's lunch did not contain 2 veg/fruit it was found to not meet the standards of lunch set by the state, so they provided her with an entire meal (and removed nothing), "Nothing from a home-packed meal is ever taken away and teachers cannot force a child to eat whatever supplemental servings are provided."* While this may not be efficient by any means it certainly is not draconian by any measure.
This story is starting to pick up steam and parent all over the state are outraged.
Because the child's lunch did not contain 2 veg/fruit it was found to not meet the standards of lunch set by the state
You need to read the links that are posted. the people in charge have no clue why her lunch was not allowed. that there was nothing wrong with her lunch at all.
it did have a veg. unless potato's are not longer considered a veg. yes those chips that were in her lunch was probably healthier than those nuggets. more so when you combine it with the other stuff.
"Nothing from a home-packed meal is ever taken away and teachers cannot force a child to eat whatever supplemental servings are provided."* While this may not be efficient by any means it certainly is not draconian by any measure.
well they did. they did not allow her to eat her home packed lunch and was given a tray of which she ate 3 nuggets and threw the rest away. they then attempted to bill the mother but when they got egg on their face they changed everything around.
all of this over some stupid inspection by a state agency.
the government has over stepped it's bounds in telling kids and their parents what to feed them.
all other similar laws have been struck down in court as unconstitutional. how this got passed i have no clue. this is outside the power of government.
thread from mystery has turned out to be less than accurate
sorry tiax but i have posted 2 articles that back each other up. one was the fox story and the other from a local news channel. i hope that you read and understand what is going on here.
government should not be telling kids that they cannot eat what their parents pack them for lunch. it is not up to the government it is up to the parent.
the government in this case has overstepped it's bounds and needs to be called out on it.
Yes actually I do think PE should be removed from schools
actually PE has shown to improve class work more so in boys than girls. PE stimulates other parts of the kids brain and gets rid of access energy more so in the afternoon. they have done studies that boys that have PE in the afternoon are able to learn more and are not as distracted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Wow where to start.
Firstly I thought the primary purpose of the education system was to provide them with an education, something that in reality has been getting poorer and poorer with each passing year.
There is absolutely no link between eating vegetables and high acheivers at school.
What kind of world do we live in where giving someone a minimum level of education isn't considered bettering them.
Also, malnourishment leads to improper development.
Yes actually I do think PE should be removed from schools but thats neither here nor there, the topic is about schools over ruling a parents choice of lunch for a child.
Well at least you are consistent, but the school didn't outweigh anyone, the mom enrolled her daughter in a voluntary, state sponsored preschool for low income kids which part of the program was, They would supplement kids lunches if not up to USDA standards.
Quote from Mystery45 »
sorry tiax but i have posted 2 articles that back each other up. one was the fox story and the other from a local news channel. i hope that you read and understand what is going on here.
government should not be telling kids that they cannot eat what their parents pack them for lunch. it is not up to the government it is up to the parent.
the government in this case has overstepped it's bounds and needs to be called out on it.
And this is why you don't ignore people just cause you don't like them, you miss that crucial piece of the conversation that points out that you are completely wrong and yet you continue arguing over it anyway.
I don't consider the education received in schools in most places nearly near enough, but again that is another debate entirely.
The USDA standards for what is considered nutritionally good are clearly lacking if processed nuggets and fish sticks are prefferable.
They gave her the entire lunch, should they have just given her the vegetables or whatnever? Sure, but that is a moot point. The mother knew this was a possibility when she signed her kid up for a voluntary, state sponsored, pre school for low income families.
Wow where to start.
Firstly I thought the primary purpose of the education system was to provide them with an education, something that in reality has been getting poorer and poorer with each passing year.
You would be completely wrong then, because American Public Education has ALWAYS been about socialization and not about education. Our education system was developed from the only other protestant developed country we could find. Prussia, who developed thier education system to support the state with factory workers and soldiers.
We teach English because it helps you blend in and become more like fellow Americans.
We teach Math because it helps you understand marching and assembly lines.
Every other thing we teach has to do with socialization from PE to Lunch. Why do you think parents want thier kid starting on the football team more than doing well in class?
Schools are doing a piss poor job right now because they don't understand thier purpose. See we wanted to teach people to get along with one another so we started teaching and emphasising other cutures. Rather than define ourselves and imprint that definition on our children, we embraced diversity, which isn't really a bad thing, but it is impossible to agree on an education that is culturally based when you have so many different cultures.
Like our government, which our schools have failed to teach, it is time to agree on the things we all hold dear and abandon the rest to parents, families and churches.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Schools are doing a piss poor job right now because they don't understand thier purpose. See we wanted to teach people to get along with one another so we started teaching and emphasising other cutures. Rather than define ourselves and imprint that definition on our children, we embraced diversity, which isn't really a bad thing, but it is impossible to agree on an education that is culturally based when you have so many different cultures.
out of 144 kindergardeners only 26 will actually participate.
As you love to say: "brush up on your reading comprehension." None of the kids were forced to sing the song. They were sent home with permission slips, and only a handful of parents consented. Optional "indoctrination" ...what a threat to society!
Also, it says right in the article you posted that those lyrics are incorrect. But lets go ahead and jump to conclusions before we have all the information, shall we?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A tier 3 Legacy deck was named after me. What have you done with your life?
Christian spirituals are sung in public school choirs all the time. Why shouldn't an Islamic spiritual be allowed?
according to the aclu it is a separation of church and state, and every year they file tons of lawsuits on schools and schools drop songs and programs because of it.
As you love to say: "brush up on your reading comprehension." None of the kids were forced to sing the song. They were sent home with permission slips, and only a handful of parents consented. Optional "indoctrination" ...what a threat to society!
Also, it says right in the article you posted that those lyrics are incorrect. But lets go ahead and jump to conclusions before we have all the information, shall we?
actually i don't have to at all seeing how i read the article. they only said that the lyrics were wrong when the media got a hold of it and people started complaining.
PS they were sent home with the lyrics so how could the lyrics be wrong if they were sent home with them?
kinda like the lunch thing she was sent home with a bill being charged to her parents until ol now they aren't charged.
the lady from the state said that it wasn't correct but this is the same lady that has no clue who the other classes are doing so i would say that anything coming from her is well not reliable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Fiction is often upsetting. Because the child's lunch did not contain 2 veg/fruit it was found to not meet the standards of lunch set by the state, so they provided her with an entire meal (and removed nothing), "Nothing from a home-packed meal is ever taken away and teachers cannot force a child to eat whatever supplemental servings are provided."* While this may not be efficient by any means it certainly is not draconian by any measure.
Its upsetting that they didnt approve of the food her mother gave her. Regardless of how I word it, its still upsetting.
Hows this?
The fact that the girl's lunch did not meet the state's requirements is upsetting. Its even more so upsetting that they provided the child with a meal that might have been even less healthy and nutritious then what the mother provided. But what really gets me, is that the school has someone to inspect the children's lunch boxes. As if they were a TSA screener searching people for weapons.
We make it the business of the schools to care about the welfare of the children of this country. That is a primary purpose of the education system, to better the students. It is also of no surprise that a child who eats healthfully will do better in school.
If you don't think it is the responsibility of the schools to make it their business to care about the health of your child, do you believe they should also get rid of physical education?
Speaking as a teacher, it is ultimately the parent who is, or should be, the ultimate arbiter in a child's life of their well-being, NOT the education system. The education system should supplement a parent's endeavors, NOT the other way around. Schools make piss poor parents, and I can tell you now that, nine times out of ten, a good student is a product of his home life more than he is of his school system.
If a school wants to educate my kid on healthy eating habits: great! If they want to educate him on healthy lifestyles in general, and even grade him on that info, great! If they try to enforce that lifestyle via policy? Hell no.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
Handing a kid an apple is hardly enforcing that lifestyle, it is giving the kid a chance to actually be able to choose which lifestyle for themselves. Like the article said, they didn't take away the kids lunch, they supplemented it.
I guess we didn't read the same article. Words like "require" and "fee" sound like enforcement to me.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
@Kraj: C'mon, we're not dumb. Obviously the school/state/whatever is trying to save face now, but that doesn't change what actually happened. Unless the lady just made up the notion that she was sent a letter from the school saying that they would charge her, and hoped no one would notice.
As a parent, I am fine with there being a recommended diet. As long as a recommendation is all that it is. I am not fine with the state/school overruling my choices as to what my kid(s) eat. If my kids were really fat and unhealthy, then they would be within their rights to bring my kids eating habits to my attention, and educate both of us as to what is proper eating and why it is important. But they still wouldn't have the right to decide what my kids eat. That is my responsibility, and mine alone.
And besides, the government has to have better things to do with it's money than pay someone to snoop through the lunches of 4 year olds.
@Timothy: Apparently you didn't actually read the same article as everyone else? They did not supplement the meal at all. They refused to let the kid eat the meal that her mother had prepared, and instead gave her a completely different meal(out of which she only ate the chicken nuggets and threw the rest away).
Where does it say they didn't let her touch her food? Cause from the article kraj linked, I do not see that at all, what I see is...
"The Journal reports the child was then provided with a full cafeteria tray, from which she ate three chicken nuggets. The Journal reported they spoke with the girl’s mother after her daughter returned home with her home-packed meal untouched. The mother has not been publicly identified.
...
If a teacher feels that a child’s home-packed meal does not meet the state’s requirements, the teacher is required to supplement the meal with whatever is missing to ensure the child is provided with a healthy lunch.
Nothing from a home-packed meal is ever taken away and teachers cannot force a child to eat whatever supplemental servings are provided."
Have you even read the updated arcticle or any of the recent posts? The mom was apparently not charged for the meal. She may have gotten a letter saying she was going to be charged but they never charged her. Pay attention.
My Trade List (long dead)
My Sales List (long dead)
">Foil Japanese Death and Taxes! (In progress, needs <10 cards)
Although I attend public school, I am in a worldview oriented (although self admittedly, slightly liberally biased), magnet program that reports not to the US government but to a private British company, the entire curriculum is created by said company.
Realize that I am not saying the school/government is justified (it isn't). But saying that you would file a million dollar lawsuit against your school for something that is both trivial and the result, in part, of a mistake, and entirely legal ( however misguided the law that made it legal may be), is just as misguided.
This leans on the level of conspiracy theorizing. Unless you have some way to back this up (I red both articles in full), I don't see where this is coming from.
This has to do with what exactly?
who here is talking about a lawsuit? other people were about if the school failed to realize a kid had a alergic reaction to a food and gave it to them.
I never said anything about a lawsuit. What i feel is stupid is that some paper pusher thinks they know better than a parent what food a kid should eat.
they sent her sandwich banana fruit drink and chips home and gave her a tray of processed garbage and called it healthier just to try and pass some stupid inspection by a state controled program.
ok reading comprehension is very important.
1. they reported that it was a state worker. then they retracted it, but the only person that would be inspecting a state run program would be the state.
2. they sent a paper home with the child saying that they were going to charge 1.25 for the tray they gave her daughter. then all of a sudden the mother wasn't charged.
yea it was a save face cover up. only it failed miserably.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The whole fiasco is a tad ridiculous in my opinion.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/
Warning for flamey/trollish spam. -Kraj
Much of the report is confirmed by the follow up. They decided not to charge her later.
Probably because the word got out and they were embarrassed by their own buffoonery.
Moral of the story: when you do something stupid, it doesn't stop being a story just because you make good on your error.
If so, that definitely changes everything.
Maybe you just don't have kids. And, you know, forgot that you ever were one. If it was as simple as 'your lunch is missing something, please eat these vegetables also', then they would have just given the kids the veggies and been done with it. Instead, they gave her a different plate full of food. Of course she is going to eat that instead, she didn't even understand what was going on.
Getting back to the nutrition of the schools provided lunch. I really doubt that 3 "pink slim" filled chicken nuggets had more nutrition in them then that bag of chips the little girls mother provided (let alone anything else her mother packed). Personally, if I was the parent, I would continue to send the same meal with my child everyday. But in the form of organic and healthy versions of the food. Organic free range ham and cheese on whole wheat bread, organic banana, organic apple juice, and some low sodium chips (baked w/ sea salt). And let them try and telling me I wasnt sending a proper meal with my child.
These requirements are made by people who benefit the most. A lot of the people who work for the USDA are some type of ex-employee of large food companies (Conagra, Monsanto, ect...) So any nutritional requirement from the USDA is a joke.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Fiction is often upsetting. Because the child's lunch did not contain 2 veg/fruit it was found to not meet the standards of lunch set by the state, so they provided her with an entire meal (and removed nothing), "Nothing from a home-packed meal is ever taken away and teachers cannot force a child to eat whatever supplemental servings are provided."* While this may not be efficient by any means it certainly is not draconian by any measure.
*news report
Like smashing face? Like not worrying about pitiful tokens or life gain? Check out Stonebrow, Krosan Hero for all your face smashing needs
You need to read the links that are posted. the people in charge have no clue why her lunch was not allowed. that there was nothing wrong with her lunch at all.
it did have a veg. unless potato's are not longer considered a veg. yes those chips that were in her lunch was probably healthier than those nuggets. more so when you combine it with the other stuff.
well they did. they did not allow her to eat her home packed lunch and was given a tray of which she ate 3 nuggets and threw the rest away. they then attempted to bill the mother but when they got egg on their face they changed everything around.
all of this over some stupid inspection by a state agency.
the government has over stepped it's bounds in telling kids and their parents what to feed them.
all other similar laws have been struck down in court as unconstitutional. how this got passed i have no clue. this is outside the power of government.
sorry tiax but i have posted 2 articles that back each other up. one was the fox story and the other from a local news channel. i hope that you read and understand what is going on here.
government should not be telling kids that they cannot eat what their parents pack them for lunch. it is not up to the government it is up to the parent.
the government in this case has overstepped it's bounds and needs to be called out on it.
actually PE has shown to improve class work more so in boys than girls. PE stimulates other parts of the kids brain and gets rid of access energy more so in the afternoon. they have done studies that boys that have PE in the afternoon are able to learn more and are not as distracted.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
What kind of world do we live in where giving someone a minimum level of education isn't considered bettering them.
Also, malnourishment leads to improper development.
Well at least you are consistent, but the school didn't outweigh anyone, the mom enrolled her daughter in a voluntary, state sponsored preschool for low income kids which part of the program was, They would supplement kids lunches if not up to USDA standards.
And this is why you don't ignore people just cause you don't like them, you miss that crucial piece of the conversation that points out that you are completely wrong and yet you continue arguing over it anyway.
They gave her the entire lunch, should they have just given her the vegetables or whatnever? Sure, but that is a moot point. The mother knew this was a possibility when she signed her kid up for a voluntary, state sponsored, pre school for low income families.
You would be completely wrong then, because American Public Education has ALWAYS been about socialization and not about education. Our education system was developed from the only other protestant developed country we could find. Prussia, who developed thier education system to support the state with factory workers and soldiers.
We teach English because it helps you blend in and become more like fellow Americans.
We teach Math because it helps you understand marching and assembly lines.
Every other thing we teach has to do with socialization from PE to Lunch. Why do you think parents want thier kid starting on the football team more than doing well in class?
Schools are doing a piss poor job right now because they don't understand thier purpose. See we wanted to teach people to get along with one another so we started teaching and emphasising other cutures. Rather than define ourselves and imprint that definition on our children, we embraced diversity, which isn't really a bad thing, but it is impossible to agree on an education that is culturally based when you have so many different cultures.
Like our government, which our schools have failed to teach, it is time to agree on the things we all hold dear and abandon the rest to parents, families and churches.
it is only getting worse at this point.
http://www.krextv.com/news/around-the-region/Islamic-Prayer-Song-Being-Sung-By-Grand-Junction-High-School-Choir-139329693.html
any other time the aclu would be all over this as well as the freedom from religon foundation. yet this is defended in the name of diversity.
our education system is not education but indoctrination.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/he-s-our-man-kindergarteners-at-texas-school-taught-song-praising-obama
out of 144 kindergardeners only 26 will actually participate.
so i say again people might not think that a school lunch is a big deal, but really it is a big deal.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Christian spirituals are sung in public school choirs all the time. Why shouldn't an Islamic spiritual be allowed?
As you love to say: "brush up on your reading comprehension." None of the kids were forced to sing the song. They were sent home with permission slips, and only a handful of parents consented. Optional "indoctrination" ...what a threat to society!
Also, it says right in the article you posted that those lyrics are incorrect. But lets go ahead and jump to conclusions before we have all the information, shall we?
according to the aclu it is a separation of church and state, and every year they file tons of lawsuits on schools and schools drop songs and programs because of it.
actually i don't have to at all seeing how i read the article. they only said that the lyrics were wrong when the media got a hold of it and people started complaining.
PS they were sent home with the lyrics so how could the lyrics be wrong if they were sent home with them?
kinda like the lunch thing she was sent home with a bill being charged to her parents until ol now they aren't charged.
the lady from the state said that it wasn't correct but this is the same lady that has no clue who the other classes are doing so i would say that anything coming from her is well not reliable.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Its upsetting that they didnt approve of the food her mother gave her. Regardless of how I word it, its still upsetting.
Hows this?
The fact that the girl's lunch did not meet the state's requirements is upsetting. Its even more so upsetting that they provided the child with a meal that might have been even less healthy and nutritious then what the mother provided. But what really gets me, is that the school has someone to inspect the children's lunch boxes. As if they were a TSA screener searching people for weapons.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B