*Facemuffin*

[agamemnus]

On a subconscious level, I knew that the national socialists would be able to subvert the idea of improving school lunches with insanity. Apparently it happened sooner than I thought. (ie: 6 years ago) It's exactly like the complaint Nessie had about prisons... for some reason, every administrator has the wherewithal to cancel the rights of Americans at will, such as our god-given rights to feed our children.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...is-not-allowed

School lunches have always been the subject of much discussion within a school cafeteria. But, lately, they've gotten even more attention: First lady Michelle Obama and lawmakers passed the child nutrition bill aimed at bettering school lunches, last December. And star chef Jamie Oliver is leading a national campaign to prove school lunches can be healthful and cheap.

Today, the Chicago Tribune brings us word that one principal is facing the issue by taking on the old brown-paper-bag staple. Elsa Carmona of Little Village Elementary Academy on Chicago's West Side has prohibited students from bringing packed lunches from home, unless they have a medical excuse. The Tribune reports:

"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk* versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.

A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals.

As expected, the policy has been met with some opposition from the students but as Yahoo!'s The Lookout reports, the policy is pretty much in line with increasingly restrictive schools:

Alabama parents protested a school's rule that barred students from bringing any drinks from home, as ice water** was provided at lunch. East Syracuse, New York schools have outlawed cupcakes and other desserts. And schools around the country have kicked out chocolate milk and soda vending machines. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin even showed up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, with dozens of cookies to express her disdain for a debate in the state about recommending teachers limit the number of times per month the sugary treats are eaten in classroom birthday celebrations.

This happened when I was little, in "city camp". They didn't want us to drink anything but water, and I liked juice. I couldn't stand that they were anti-juice and got out of it. Except that "city camp" was a private business..

PS: Go Sarah Palin! The recommendation for limiting "sugary treats" I could live with, but force-feeding kids school lunches? <apologist> Maybe Palin just doesn't know about this Chicago thing, as it is much more extreme.... </apologist>

*This will go down well with people who don't like or can't process milk. Forget medical excuses, it's just stupid to force-feed milk to kids. How much did the milk industry pay them?

**because children love ice water and need its 0 calories to grow... probably from the tap, meaning it is extra flouridated, great for over-exposing teeth and decreasing IQ I hear.

[GGT]

Geeze, aggie, can you add any other post-scripts or * or ** to make your point? What IS your point, exactly?

Are you sure you don't mean to be posting about Boston's mayor banning any beverage containing sugar?

[agamemnus]

I don't think principals should be able to so easily subvert the constitution.

I don't agree about Boston's mayor banning the sale of beverages containing sugar and "soda" on city-owned property. That's just a restriction on the freedom to sell stuff though, (and in a public place), a practice of government which has been accepted by society for a while...

[GGT]

Okay. And? As the title of the article says, it's one Chicago school. Other school districts around the country try to control vending machine sales from soda pops or candy bars. Some try to limit cakes or cookies brought from home. Others even have strict no-peanut or no-shell fish policies.

What's your point?

[coinich]

That the one school is wrong for attempting to force that decision on people?

[Ominous Gamer]

Dammit, I wanted to post this, just so I could frame it in a way that would hopefully stop morons like aga (I was honestly expecting lewk) to post this with a liberal or socialist rant.

This is a money grab, nothing more and nothing less. There is no basis to claim one lunch is more healthy than another. Lunch in Chicago is something like $2.25 a day, 5 times a week, 180 days a year.

[Veldan Rath]

I may buy 'It's about the money', but aren't the lunches subsidized? I don't see the school making $$$ of this.

I'm still gonna go with the principal thinking she knows best.

[Ominous Gamer]

As far as I'm aware, only the free and reduced lunches are subsidized federally. Schools get $2.72 per student that qualifies for free lunch. So the more students you are forcing to apply, the more (possible) funds you're bringing in that way. Full price lunch comes from the district budget (unverified), and even then, there is a new law coming into effect this summer that is going to start requiring that prices slowly move up to match the $2.72 the government pays.

So the school is going to be bringing in more money all around by not allowing bag lunches.


EDIT:
http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/fedrates.pdf
I was off a little bit, but the school still makes out. For each kid that eats a school lunch, the school gets between $2.50 and $2.78 (after accounting for what the students pay). So the more kids you get lining up for school lunch, the more federal money that comes your way.

[Veldan Rath]

Good to know.

So either the principal is a hack or a crusader...not sure which I prefer...

[wiggin]

As far as I'm aware, only the free and reduced lunches are subsidized federally. Schools get $2.72 per student that qualifies for free lunch. So the more students you are forcing to apply, the more (possible) funds you're bringing in that way. Full price lunch comes from the district budget (unverified), and even then, there is a new law coming into effect this summer that is going to start requiring that prices slowly move up to match the $2.72 the government pays.

So the school is going to be bringing in more money all around by not allowing bag lunches.


EDIT:
http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/fedrates.pdf
I was off a little bit, but the school still makes out. For each kid that eats a school lunch, the school gets between $2.50 and $2.78 (after accounting for what the students pay). So the more kids you get lining up for school lunch, the more federal money that comes your way.

Do you have any data indicating schools actually make money on lunches? Just because they charge money and receive federal funds doesn't mean they run a surplus.

[agamemnus]

Dammit, I wanted to post this, just so I could frame it in a way that would hopefully stop morons like aga (I was honestly expecting lewk) to post this with a liberal or socialist rant.

Lulz. In fact, I don't have "liberal" in there this time...most liberals are just misinformed. This was a power-grab.

This is a money grab, nothing more and nothing less. There is no basis to claim one lunch is more healthy than another. Lunch in Chicago is something like $2.25 a day, 5 times a week, 180 days a year.

Could be. That's why I mentioned the Milk Lobby (or what have you) for the paranoid-money-grab fans. Edit: from your research it seems that the school directly benefits in $$, but it's the same general idea. (that one would merit discussion in and of itself) It doesn't make the rest of the story (ie: freeedoms) any different though.

[Lewkowski]

And of course its a liberal wet dream to require only public school and not allow private school/home school options...

Its always about control. Because big brother knows best.

[GGT]

And of course its a liberal wet dream to require only public school and not allow private school/home school options...

Its always about control. Because big brother knows best.

Remind us what your position was in the Fat Tax thread......I recall you supported such a tax for either fat Medicaid recipients and/or fatty foods and sodas.

[GGT]

Also, Lewk---what's this got to do with private or homeschooling options? Teh evil lib'rulz don't object to what those students are eating, but when academic agendas can include things like creationism or debunking mainstream science.

[agamemnus]

Also, Lewk---what's this got to do with private or homeschooling options? Teh evil lib'rulz don't object to what those students are eating, but when academic agendas can include things like creationism or debunking mainstream science.

It's similar though a different level of control... forcing your kids to go to specific schools, and then essentially forcing them to eat certain foods...

[GGT]

It's similar though a different level of control... forcing your kids to go to specific schools, and then essentially forcing them to eat certain foods...

Both pekinese and pitt bull are dogs, but they are different dogs. Lewk was suggesting Big Brother "knowing best" is a liberal concept, even though he seemed fine with Uncle Sam taxing certain products or behaviors (smoking, drinking, soda, fast food).

[Nessus]

And of course its a liberal wet dream to require only public school and not allow private school/home school options...

Its always about control. Because big brother knows best.

Public schools do seem much better an option than fuck-witted parents "home-schooling" their children to poison their minds with religious propaganda and other assorted senseless lies.

[GGT]

Lewk is mentioning the "control" angle, though not necessarily in the good light he presumes. We have some homeschoolers in our district, and their parents are most definitely control freaks.

[Ominous Gamer]

liberal wet dream

I so called this!

[Lewkowski]

Both pekinese and pitt bull are dogs, but they are different dogs. Lewk was suggesting Big Brother "knowing best" is a liberal concept, even though he seemed fine with Uncle Sam taxing certain products or behaviors (smoking, drinking, soda, fast food).

Uh no. I'm not in favor of fat/sin taxes. Re-read my posts on that thread. Government shouldn't be in the business of choosing behavior for people. Now when people are getting freebie handouts there may be some restrictions placed on what they can do with those freebie handouts but that is it. If you will recall I was also posting how the obese people don't actually cost us that much more money since we save money on the entitlement end when they die off sooner.

[Lewkowski]

Public schools do seem much better an option than fuck-witted parents "home-schooling" their children to poison their minds with religious propaganda and other assorted senseless lies.

What metric do you want to use to determine weather or not public school provides a greater education then home schooling? Should we look at crime rates? Should we look at % that go on to college? Should we look at civic involvement? In America its pretty obvious that home schooling as proven itself superior to public schools and if we can agree on some metric I'll even look it up for you if you'll then admit home schooling is superior.

[Ominous Gamer]

Should we look at crime rates? Should we look at % that go on to college? Should we look at civic involvement? In America its pretty obvious that home schooling as proven itself superior to public schools and if we can agree on some metric I'll even look it up for you if you'll then admit home schooling is superior.

here we go again.

You made these claims (and more) last time, and you were shot down because you were misreading the single link of "proof" you supplied. Hell, it didn't even touch on most of these claims, that you're once again making without a citation. In fact, this will be the 3rd time that you've made this claim and evidence has been requested. The first time you ignored the request completely, the 2nd time you provided a misread report (then ignored the discussion), and now this time you're using other users as scapegoats.
You seem to be suffering from talking head syndrome, thinking that by repeating a claim over and over again you will somehow magically make it come true.

So lets try this one more time...

Citation needed. And this time, try to put some effort into showing your results are in fact a result of the schooling and nothing more.

[Lewkowski]

here we go again.

You made these claims (and more) last time, and you were shot down because you were misreading the single link of "proof" you supplied. Hell, it didn't even touch on most of these claims, that you're once again making without a citation.

So lets try this one more time...

Citation needed. And this time, try to put some effort into showing your results are in fact a result of the schooling and nothing more.

I'm not going to go through extra effort to get the data (which I'm pretty sure I've posted before either on this forum or on the old Atari) until Nessus or others accept that if the data is proven they will change their opinion. If they aren't going to change their opinion why bother?

[Ominous Gamer]

If they aren't going to change their opinion why bother?

Well hell, thats a good enough reason to remove you from these here boards completely

[LittleFuzzy]

Lewk is mentioning the "control" angle, though not necessarily in the good light he presumes. We have some homeschoolers in our district, and their parents are most definitely control freaks.

But are their kids receiving a poor education? I've mentioned before that two of my cousins were home-schooled, and part of that certainly was that my aunt was a control freak. She's freaking nuts. But they got degrees from better colleges than anyone else of my generation in the family. Similarly, we can predict that the stereo-typical "Chinese mother" is probably going to arrange a course of instruction that's more grueling than one you'll find in the public system, and the control-freak aspect of that stereotype is a major reason why. Nessie keeps insisting home-schooled minds are going to be poisoned but the evidence simply isn't there so far. Evidence in general is fairly lacking.

[Nessus]

What metric do you want to use to determine weather or not public school provides a greater education then home schooling? Should we look at crime rates? Should we look at % that go on to college? Should we look at civic involvement? In America its pretty obvious that home schooling as proven itself superior to public schools and if we can agree on some metric I'll even look it up for you if you'll then admit home schooling is superior.

I have little difficulty believing that US public schools are doing a piss-poor job, the GOP is very keen to dismantle public schooling as soon as humanly possible to further divide the society into Eloi and Morlocks. (White people vs. brown people, for the most part.) This in and of itself is not a condemnation of public schools as an idea or a concept, nor does it mean that home-schooling is not primarily used as a tool for fuck-witted religious monsters such as yourself to poison the minds of children with your mythological garbage. The religious mythological poison is of course present in the over-all culture, so I won't pretend that public schooling alone can stave off the destruction of so many young minds, but most certainly I will assert that allowing Evangelical fuck-muppets to Evangelicize their children is purely a detriment on society, as well as a gross injustice on the innocent children now indoctrinated into monstrosities.

That US public schools are doing poorly is a reason to improve them, not shy away from it and turn to home-schooling! Of course it behooves your base and disgusting motives to promote the latter.

[Nessus]

But are their kids receiving a poor education? I've mentioned before that two of my cousins were home-schooled, and part of that certainly was that my aunt was a control freak. She's freaking nuts. But they got degrees from better colleges than anyone else of my generation in the family. Similarly, we can predict that the stereo-typical "Chinese mother" is probably going to arrange a course of instruction that's more grueling than one you'll find in the public system, and the control-freak aspect of that stereotype is a major reason why. Nessie keeps insisting home-schooled minds are going to be poisoned but the evidence simply isn't there so far. Evidence in general is fairly lacking.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence?

[LittleFuzzy]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence?

No, but at the same time home-schooling might be turning out exceptionally well-educated, right thinking young people. There's no evidence. You don't even have anything to support the claim that home-schooling is primarily done by "fuck-witted religious" types. The ONLY support you have is your own bigotry.

[Catgrrl]

Question: If no home lunches allowed, are the school lunches then free for students? I can't see making all parents pay for lunch. Can you imagine someone with three+ kids having to pay $40 or more per week for lunch? Also, why not extend this to the teachers as well? Plenty of fatass teachers you know. Gotta make an example for the kids!

I'd also argue that the greasy pizza and chicken sandwiches they used to serve aren't healthier than the turkey and cheese sandwich, cookie, and pretzels I used to take as a kid. But I imagine they probably have revamped that district's school lunches by now to be healthier.

[Nessus]

No, but at the same time home-schooling might be turning out exceptionally well-educated, right thinking young people. There's no evidence. You don't even have anything to support the claim that home-schooling is primarily done by "fuck-witted religious" types. The ONLY support you have is your own bigotry.

As opposed to hope upon hope?